The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: CG6468 on May 05, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
-
Down with unions! :bird:
EDITORIAL: Big Labor’s attack on democracy
Administration launches strike on Boeing and right-to-work states
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Obama’s hand-picked appointees at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are delivering favors to the administration’s Big Labor backers. In just the past two weeks, the board has taken steps to overturn the will of voters in two states and chill the speech of corporate chieftains who spoke out against the labor movement’s thuggish tactics.
On April 20, NLRB staff issued an “unfair labor practices†complaint against Boeing Co. for deciding to open a production line in a non-union state. The aerospace giant is expected Wednesday to file its response to the board blasting the charge as having no basis in law. Boeing has bet billions on the success of its latest product, the 787 Dreamliner. After a number of setbacks, the company is anxious to get this lighter and more fuel-efficient plane into the hands of its customers. “It’s really a great new American export,†Boeing spokesman Tim Neale told The Washington Times. “Most of those 800-plus planes that are on order currently are going outside the country.â€
Any delay in meeting those orders will cost the firm big money. To meet the demand, Boeing needed more capacity than it had with its Puget Sound factories that can churn out seven 787s per month. Boeing officials considered expanding Washington state facilities, but union officials dug in and refused to guarantee production stability. So Boeing selected a non-union site in North Charleston, S.C., that will reliably assemble three planes each month, regardless of what the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) do. The last time this union went on a 58-day strike in 2008, Boeing lost $1.8 billion.
Unions vs. the rest of the country (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/3/big-labors-attack-on-democracy/)
-
It would be pretty difficult to deny that the head of Boeing didn't flagrantly violate contract law and with hubris bragged and mocked others, about having done so. It's one thing to break the law, it's another to go on television announcing it, it's something else when you act outraged over being called out on it. Regardless though, this was a seriously complicated endeavor which won't be resolved as a simple matter.
-
These union assholes are really getting out of hand. I lost more than one good job due to unions trying to muscle in on non union shops and destroying a good thing, productivity. What is a company to do?
God forbid, if you get lucky one night and wake up with a raging infestation of saber tooth crotch crickets are you just supposed to let them stay because they need to make a living too?
That's how I see unions, PARASITES.
Here are some questions for you pro union peeping Toms- how much work do your unions secure for the companies you lay siege to? How much sustenance to you provide for your conscripts?
You know the answer to that one- ZERO. Parasites produce nothing but toxic excrement and tax the host to death.
:busted:
-
It would be pretty difficult to deny that the head of Boeing didn't flagrantly violate contract law and with hubris bragged and mocked others, about having done so. It's one thing to break the law, it's another to go on television announcing it, it's something else when you act outraged over being called out on it. Regardless though, this was a seriously complicated endeavor which won't be resolved as a simple matter.
Not that I doubt you, but when did Boeing violate contract law?
-
Saw this elsewhere:
Makes for a great pick-up line in Cowleefornyah:
Man: “Hi, are you a Communist?â€
Woman: “Yes.â€
Man: “Good, let’s go back to my place and f**k.â€
Woman: “What?!!?â€
Man: “Well, you’re a Communist, right? “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs�
Woman: “Well, umm, yes, that’s the philosophy, but I don’t…â€
Man: “Well then, you have the means to f**k me and I have the need to get f**ked. So let’s go, pinko.â€
-
Saw this elsewhere:
Makes for a great pick-up line in Cowleefornyah:
Man: “Hi, are you a Communist?â€
Woman: “Yes.â€
Man: “Good, let’s go back to my place and f**k.â€
Woman: “What?!!?â€
Man: “Well, you’re a Communist, right? “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs�
Woman: “Well, umm, yes, that’s the philosophy, but I don’t…â€
Man: “Well then, you have the means to f**k me and I have the need to get f**ked. So let’s go, pinko.â€
I'm tempted to say "Hey, it's all pinko on the inside."
But that would be bad...
:whistling:
-
Here are some questions for you pro union peeping Toms- how much work do your unions secure for the companies you lay siege to? How much sustenance to you provide for your conscripts?
You know the answer to that one- ZERO. Parasites produce nothing but toxic excrement and tax the host to death.
As a union representative and committee man, I've personally written up business plans for several hundred new jobs, which I have been successfully able to secure. Bringing new revenue and lower expenses to a company, while working in partnership with them.
As for sustenance, while one could argue the semantics of it; neither I, the union, or the company provide a means of livelihood. That comes from their personal work ethic, knowledge, skills, and dedication.
Additionally, albeit not to dwell on it, you may want to read up a bit on parasites.
Not that I doubt you, but when did Boeing violate contract law?
It was arguably during their past labor negotiations with the International Association of Machinists. Here's a link to the actual complaint, which is leading to a hearing being scheduled. I will note though, that the formal complaints are often written to be rather vague and generally not including the meat of the argument, the specifics and "ka-pow" facts are left for the hearing or arbitration. Regardless of our individual thoughts and views, this will be an interesting case. Unfortunately partisan politics often plays a significant role, to the benefit of the party office instead of fairness, reason, logic, or concurrency with case history. National Labor Board Relations Complaint. (http://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/documents/443/cpt_19-ca-032431_boeing__4-20-2011_complaint_and_not_hrg.pdf)
-
As a union representative and committee man, I've personally written up business plans for several hundred jobs, which I have been successfully able to secure. Bringing new revenue and lower expenses to a company, while working in partnership with them.
As for sustenance, while one could argue the semantics of it; neither I, the union, or the company provide a means of livelihood. That comes from their personal work ethic, knowledge, skills, and dedication.
Additionally, albeit not to dwell on it, you may want to read up a bit on parasites.
My experience with unions is that they are indeed parasites.
-
My experience with unions is that they are indeed parasites.
I can understand. There are some unions, whom I consider to be parasitic leaches as well. However it's not all, it's just a tool of legal frame work, that can be used to advocate for fair wages, for a fair days work in safe and respectable conditions. To me, the Republican argument that Unions are Evil is absurd as the Liberal argument that Corporations are Evil. They're both just tools, legal framework, that can be used for better or worse. They're both useful IMHO, when kept reasonable, albeit that's something which everyone has a unique definition of.
-
Monopolies distort and circumvent market forces.
-
I can understand. There are some unions, whom I consider to be parasitic leaches as well. However it's not all, it's just a tool of legal frame work, that can be used to advocate for fair wages, for a fair days work in safe and respectable conditions. To me, the Republican argument that Unions are Evil is absurd as the Liberal argument that Corporations are Evil. They're both just tools, legal framework, that can be used for better or worse. They're both useful IMHO, when kept reasonable, albeit that's something which everyone has a unique definition of.
Hi,
I am sure you can cite examples, just like those who are open shop advocates can where one side or another has gone to an extreme. With that being said, here is my concern with the unions.
The true worth of anyone in the job market is based on a fundamental economic law, supply and demand. If there were another 100,000 heart surgeons in this country, it would be a lot less expensive. Like it or not, top professional athletes are paid a ton of money because there are very few of them that can perform at that level. If you want to earn a good living, go into a field where there is tremendous demand for what you do with little competition in the labor market, plain and simple.
In my lifetime I have gone from generally pro union to the opposite and here is why. In the early days unions struck for fair wages and good working conditions and indeed there was a real need to do so. Corporations basically controlled the labor market, many treated their workers shabbily and they got what they deserved. The good news is at least most all of the sweat shops in the US are long gone.
Now the unions basically did not stop, each and every contract they kept demanding more and more and the fool corporations gave it to them. GM, Ford and Chrysler at one time had almost 100% share of the US market and they felt as long as they all three paid basically the same wages, they could raise the prices of their cars and still compete on a level playing field with one another. The management of the big three took the easy path and made economic commitments they could not keep down the road, much like our government has made commitments they cannot keep. Well it took a couple of decades but soon foreign competition came in with much lower labor costs, and most of all lower pension, retirement and other costs. They made quality products and priced them a hair under the US products and pretty soon they had a good chunk of market share and making a ton of money in the process. I forget the exact figures but it was something like $2,000 of the cost of every GM automobile goes to pay benefits for non working union members; while Toyota pays something like $400. The ratio was huge and no matter how much you may not like it, American automakers just have a tough time competing.
Multiply that effect on most manufacturing companies in the US and pretty soon all the jobs started moving offshore. If one is a laborer in an auto plant, glass plant, plastics plant....etc. and there is a tremendous supply of foreign workers that can do the same job for a fraction of the salary that is paid in the US, like it or not the law of supply and demand will kick in and pretty soon there are no more jobs. Add the stupid government regulations, unrealistic environmental laws etc. and it is no wonder corporations are moving jobs offshore as fast as they can. You can blame the greedy corporations all you want but they are trying to survive in a worldwide competitive marketplace. The union leadership understood that but did not seem to care, they just kept demanding more and more until companies were forced to move jobs offshore.
Before I retired, I was a consultant having worked with 40 of the top 500 US corporations as well as a lot of other smaller companies. I lost count of the number of times I knew of where management gave the unions their best offer in a contract negotiations and meant it. The union leadership was shown the books, told if they did not take it they would be forced to do something they did not want to do, close up the plant and move offshore. The union called their bluff, the plants were closed and the jobs were lost forever. I knew of dozens, if not a hundred cases where that scenario took place. In most cases it was pretty clear, if the company agreed to the union demands they could not compete and would go bankrupt, or they spend millions to open plants somewhere else so they could stay in business. The union leadership sold out the rank and file time after time.
So what do we have left? We have a system where unions collect union dues, waaaay to much, then buy a political party, who gladly accepts their money so the individual politicians can stay in power. There was an analysis going around the internet that showed unions contributed something like $50 million to republicans in 2010 and $450 million to democrats. Ummmm, pardon me! All concerned, including the poor sap who is paying dues, would be better server if they took the entire $500 million and reduced everyone's union dues. If the membership wants to contribute let them do so on their own. We would all be better off.
Wonder why it is that the states that have the highest % of union membership, and long standing democratic leadership, are the ones on top of the bankruptcy list? It cannot be just a coincidence.
Personally, as a conservative, I have little problem with the rank and file, heck I have been a member of a few unions myself over the years. My problem is the disconnect between their leadership and reality. As Andy Stern said, they will use the power of persuasion and if that does not work, then the persuasion of power. Umm, pardon me! What that means to me is screw the will of the majority, screw the rule of law, we are going to bully our way to get what we want and we see evidence of that in the state of Wisconsin.
Want an example. GM should have been allowed to file for bankruptcy. BO did not want that because then the union would have to negotiate in good faith. Instead they totally violated the law, screwed the bondholders and gave the company to the unions which was totally illegal. The bondholders were basically bullied into submission with government threats.
The Boeing situation is just the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a much bigger problem. The unions own the democrat party to the point they are willing to break the law to pander to them for their campaign contributions so they can stay in power. That is a very dangerous situation, one that can easily lead to communism.
regards,
5412
-
Great post, 5412! ^5.
I have rarely heard it put as concisely and accurately as you have just done here.
75 years ago the unions did a lot of good. This world of today though, is a whole different ballgame.
The unions of today are a far cry from what they were during the depression, their agenda is not the same now.
Today they are not mainly looking to improve the conditions of "downtrodden and exploited" workers. They would still have you believe that but that's not where they're at today.
They have gotten too big for their britches and enjoy (and abuse) a position of great power, dangerous power far beyond the scope of where they should be, and used to be concerned.
Today they have morphed into a national force which seeks to bring a sea change to American society, throwing a monkey wrench into the rudder to jam it hard left on the home stretch to socialism.
Well, it seems, if developments in Wisconsin and elsewhere are any indication, that the American people are becoming wise to the end game here and responding with a resounding "We're not having that"!
This has the far left in fits. This is why we see them going for broke now with the mask off and bald faced communism being openly flaunted. Screw all that and screw their Pied Piper, George Soros too.
-
Unions did a very necessary thing in curbing the worst abuses of cutthroat Capitalism and its indifference to the safety and life of expendable workers. In the late 19th Century, for instance, figures vary but estimates are around 16,000 railroad workers were killed every year because brakemen were cheaper than retrofitting Janney automatic couplers and Westinghouse air brakes to the rolling stock fleet, and the mining industry was notorious for paying in scrip instead of money so entire towns were in thrall to the companies because the families could only buy their necessities in the company store. But so much of the good they originally stood for was accomplished by political action covering entire industries rather than negotiation with individual companies that it has resulted in all the good things they originally sponsored having been taken over by the Federal government, with OSHA, DOL, EEOC, and a dozen other nationwide Federal agencies and a large number of industry-specific ones to boot, as well as a ton of laws like Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Act that more-or-less directly favor them. Unions really aren't fulfilling a particularly useful economic purpose anymore, but are resting on century-old laurels.
-
Unions really aren't fulfilling a particularly useful economic purpose anymore, but are resting on century-old laurels.
Those aren't laurels.
It's hemlock.
-
I beg to differ. There was a valid reason they came into existence, and they did fulfill a valuable civic function ... a long time ago.
-
In capitalist countries, where the Communist Party does not possess any means of coercion, it is obvious that it can give leadership only by Communists being in the trade unions as rank-and-file members or functionaries. The number of Communists in leading posts of the trade unions is only one of the means of measuring the role of the party in the trade unions. The most important measurement is the percentage of rank-and-file Communists in relation to the whole unionised mass. But the principal criterion is the general influence of the party on the working class, which is measured by the circulation of the Communist press, the attendance at meetings of the party, the number of votes at elections and, what is especially important the number of working men and women who respond actively to the party’s appeals to struggle.
It is clear that the influence of the Communist Party in general, including the trade unions, will grow, the more revolutionary the situation becomes.
These conditions permit an appreciation of the degree and the form of the true, real and not the metaphysical autonomy of the trade unions. In times of “peace,†when the most militant forms of trade union action are isolated economic strikes, the direct role of the pâ€, in trade union action falls back to second place. As a general rule, the party does not make a decision on every isolated strike. It helps le (sic) trade union to decide the question of knowing if the strike is opportune, by means of its political and economic information and by its advice. It serves the strike with its agitation, etc. First place in the strike belongs, of course to the trade union.
The situation changes radically when the movement rises to the general strike and still more to the direct struggle for power. In these conditions, the leading role of the party becomes entirely direct, open, and immediate. The trade unions – naturally not those that pass over to the other side of the barricades – become the organisational apparatus of the party which, in the presence of the whole class, stands forth as the leader of the revolution, bearing the full responsibility.
In the field, extending between the partial economic strike and the revolutionary class insurrection are placed all the possible forms of reciprocal relations between the party and the trade unions, the varying degrees of direct and immediate leadership, etc. But under all conditions, the party seeks to win general leadership by relying upon the real autonomy of the trade unions which, as organisations – it goes without saying – are not “submitted†to it.
Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/unions/3-commsyn.htm
**** a union.
-
It would be pretty difficult to deny that the head of Boeing didn't flagrantly violate contract law and with hubris bragged and mocked others, about having done so. It's one thing to break the law, it's another to go on television announcing it, it's something else when you act outraged over being called out on it. Regardless though, this was a seriously complicated endeavor which won't be resolved as a simple matter.
Boeing needed a new facility to build more 787's. They approached the union and said they'd expand in Everett, if the unions would promise them something in return, I.e. "can you PLEASE not strike while we're getting it up and running?". The unions said, "**** you". So, Boeing built the plant in SC.
If I were Boeing, I'd shut down ALL production facilities in that hellhole and move to a RTW state. I don't know how the unions are in your state, but in Washington, they actively work against their own damn interest. Why? Because all that union shit means NOTHING if the damn jobs go away. Ask the people in Detroit.
-
Boeing needed a new facility to build more 787's. They approached the union and said they'd expand in Everett, if the unions would promise them something in return, I.e. "can you PLEASE not strike while we're getting it up and running?". The unions said, "**** you". So, Boeing built the plant in SC.
Unions - the reason BMW built their plant in South Carolina and the reason the Big 3 are on life support.
-
Unions - the reason BMW built their plant in South Carolina and the reason the Big 3 are on life support.
Not just BMW and Boeing, Honda has a huge plant there too, as well as the Kia plant in GA and Hyundai plant in AL (Last two might be reversed)
-
Not just BMW and Boeing, Honda has a huge plant there too, as well as the Kia plant in GA and Hyundai plant in AL (Last two might be reversed)
You're right. Kia is in GA. There's a Nissan plant in Canton, Ms. and a Mercedes plant about 15 minutes East of Tuscaloosa, Al.
-
You're right. Kia is in GA. There's a Nissan plant in Canton, Ms. and a Mercedes plant about 15 minutes East of Tuscaloosa, Al.
I wasn't aware of those last two, but that just further emphasizes the point that jobs are created where unions aren't.
-
Volkswagen is building a plant in Tennessee as well. Nissan has a plant there and moved their US HQ to Nashville from California a couple years ago.
-
...and 99.999% of ALL Golf Carts are built in the South. EZGO, Augusta, Ga., Club Car, Evans, Ga., Yamaha Golf Carts, Newnan, Ga.
We have a lock on golf cars.
-
...and 99.999% of ALL Golf Carts are built in the South. EZGO, Augusta, Ga., Club Car, Evans, Ga., Yamaha Golf Carts, Newnan, Ga.
We have a lock on golf cars.
:rotf:
How are you guys in the south doing with the scooters? Gotta lock on them, too?
-
:rotf:
How are you guys in the south doing with the scooters? Gotta lock on them, too?
Not yet. We can't beat out China's slave wages.
-
Hi,
Here is one for you. I summer in Illinois, the state is broke and the legislature is going to pass a bill banning trans fat. Now Sears, one of the great Chicago based companies is going to move their headquarters out of Illinois, just like Motorola before them. The paper asked for readers to vote about how they felt about the proposed law. Here is what I wrote them this morning.
Dear Editor,
I see in today's paper that the Illinois legislature is likely to pass a bill to ban trans-fat and the paper is conducting a poll. Here is my vote.
Isn't it time for Illinois legislators to stop trying to be our nannies and be responsible adults? The budget mess is terrible, things are getting worse not better and they fiddle with trans fats. Apparently they do not think adults are capable of making adult decisions so they have to pass this stupid bill. Perhaps they should show some adult behavior and make some responsible decisions like spending their time on things that need to be fixed.
Sears, once an Illinois stalwart company now wants to leave town. Doesn't anyone realize that perhaps it is a result of the political climate and tax structure in Illinois? Perhaps one might consider that McDonalds is also headquartered in Illinois. Wonder how long before they decide to leave Illinois also....
My vote, go to work and solve the budget problem and keep your hands off my french fries.....
These idiots in the union/democrat state are insane. I would not be surprised to see McDonalds move their headquarters out of the state also, and who the hell can blame them. It seems the union/liberal states are trying to solve all their budget problems by taxing the hell out of all those big, evil corporations, and then they wonder why the leave. Damn right Boeing should move it all out of Washington, it is just a matter of time. They will build some satellite plants around the country and then one day announce they are shutting down Everett and I will be cheering.
regards,
5412
-
Illinois will never change until Chicago no longer controls the state.
-
Illinois will never change until Chicago no longer controls the state.
Hi,
You know if you really think about it, the unions get their bad reputation moreso for their methods than their purpose. Why is it, particularly in Illinois, they have been more thugs than anything.
My grandson gave me a book on the building of the original soldier field. It was built during the depression and the cost and pandering to the unions was amazing. FDR came for a political rally and the unions packed the place. As the book says they took attendance and if you were a union member and not there they sent thugs to your door and basically dragged you to the place.
Take that with the corruption over the decades and it is no wonder a vast majority of the public has a problem with unions. They may well have solved a lot of problems in the workplace; but not without creating many more.
regards,
5412
-
Hi,
You know if you really think about it, the unions get their bad reputation moreso for their methods than their purpose. Why is it, particularly in Illinois, they have been more thugs than anything.
As Professor Parkinson taught, no matter how laudable or positive the nominal purpose of any organization may be, they all ultimately have one paramount purpose - to survive, grow, and expand their own power, which all too often comes to overwhelm the original positive for which they stood.
-
As Professor Parkinson taught, no matter how laudable or positive the nominal purpose of any organization may be, they all ultimately have one paramount purpose - to survive, grow, and expand their own power, which all too often comes to overwhelm the original positive for which they stood.
I've never even heard of Professor Parkinson, but anyone who has ever been a part of ANY organization for very long knows that your quote is the God's honest truth....for anyone who's paying attention.
h5
-
I've never even heard of Professor Parkinson, but anyone who has ever been a part of ANY organization for very long knows that your quote is the God's honest truth....for anyone who's paying attention.
h5
And it applies more so to government.
-
I've never even heard of Professor Parkinson, but anyone who has ever been a part of ANY organization for very long knows that your quote is the God's honest truth....for anyone who's paying attention.
h5
Google up Parkinson's Law (Actually 'laws,' as I recall), Parkinson was a pretty original thinker who was among the first to see the big picture of bureaucracies as entities in themselves, rather than as just the collective effort and psychology of the individuals in them.
-
I love this one [from the Wiki article]:
"Parkinson's second law", is "expenditures rise to meet income".
This is the principal reason we cannot EVER trust Congress to collectively hold spending down and simply "do the right thing." That money burns a hole in their wallets.
This one is even better:
Parkinson also proposed a rule about the efficiency of administrative councils. He defined a coefficient of inefficiency with the number of members as the main determining variable.
When you click on the link "coefficient of inefficiency" you see that Wiki has deleted that page.
:rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao:
-
I love this one [from the Wiki article]:
This is the principal reason we cannot EVER trust Congress to collectively hold spending down and simply "do the right thing." That money burns a hole in their wallets.
And that is why they never want a balanced budget amendment. They need deficit spending as a reason to raise taxes.
-
When you click on the link "coefficient of inefficiency" you see that Wiki has deleted that page.
Yeah, in that vein I still remember from reading him many, many years ago the example of the staffing of the 'British Colonial Office' or something very similar, comparing its staffing over the years to the number of British colonies still in existence...although the number of colonies was steadily declining, the number of Colonial Office employees kept rising, and at a rate higher than a mere inversely-proportional relationship would predict.
:-)
-
I love this one [from the Wiki article]:
This is the principal reason we cannot EVER trust Congress to collectively hold spending down and simply "do the right thing." That money burns a hole in their wallets.
This one is even better:
When you click on the link "coefficient of inefficiency" you see that Wiki has deleted that page.
:rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao:
HI,
I wish that the expenditures would rise to meet income, our governement blows that all to hell. Reagan said that no matter how much money the federal goverment takes in congress will spend at least a hundred billion more. He contended that you needed to reduce taxes and income and that was the only way to cut spending. Hell he never met BO, government revenue means nothing to him, if you come up short just print the money on a printing press.
regards,
5412
-
Google up Parkinson's Law (Actually 'laws,' as I recall), Parkinson was a pretty original thinker...
I'm a huge fan.
I even have the commemorative Parkinson's bobble-head doll.
-
I'm a huge fan.
I even have the commemorative Parkinson's bobble-head doll.
DO you keep it next to the Alex P. Keaton bobble-head?
-
DO you keep it next to the Alex P. Keaton bobble-head?
Self-shaking, right?
-
DO you keep it next to the Alex P. Keaton bobble-head?
I came up with that years ago for a conservative marketing catalog.
I also had cherry-flavored mace...because feminists need all the help they can get...and a low-wattage electric sun-dial.