[ken.yotz]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

& Ur point??

and you call yourself "SAGE"?

[opinionist]

Private sector unions serve their purpose when business owners abuse their workers. Wages are always limited by what the business can afford. Public sector unions have no market regulation on wages, and the result is ever-higher taxes and deficit spending. Private sector unions have diminished in power with the movement of jobs overseas, giving us a considerable trade deficit and the risk of a massive shock event when we can no longer purchase foreign goods with printed money. The solution will be painful following a failure of the financial system.

[4$ALE]

Originally Posted by ken.yotz

and you call yourself "SAGE"?

No "Junior Member"..... he calls himself Mr. Helpful

[bragones]

Unions fester mediocrity. I worked my entire career in non-union companies. Employees were always encouraged to strive for faster, better, cheaper. Those who thrived in that environment were rewarded generously with hefty salary increases, stock options and bonuses. Those who did not eventually parted ways with company, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Pensions were not needed. You self-funded retirement through 401k contributions which were matched by the company, in some cases up to 11% of your salary. The thought of not keeping up with productivity changes such as AI and automation was not tolerated. My career afforded me the American dream of early retirement with very comfortable financial stability. A union friend of mine once claimed he was a union hero because he figured out how to get the most time off without breaking any union rules. Appalling. BTW, robots will never stop working to hold our country hostage for self-interests.

[Wilson02852]

If companies did what unions do they would be dragged into court and charged with violation of antitrust laws. They cannot even buy one another out without government approval.

Yet unions can form an all encompassing group and can act from New England to Texas and get a pass.

Interesting concept.

[Cuervo]

Originally Posted by opinionist

Private sector unions serve their purpose when business owners abuse their workers. Wages are always limited by what the business can afford. Public sector unions have no market regulation on wages, and the result is ever-higher taxes and deficit spending. Private sector unions have diminished in power with the movement of jobs overseas, giving us a considerable trade deficit and the risk of a massive shock event when we can no longer purchase foreign goods with printed money. The solution will be painful following a failure of the financial system.

First work going offshore will happen even if unions did not exist, if workers here worked for a dollar an hour and an employer believes they could get the same product in India for $0.50 wave good-by the job is gone.
As far as tactics unions will use whatever muscle they have, and employers will use whatever lobbyist has the most influence to get what they want done.
Though this involves the lives of people in this country at the end of the day it's no more than a money game.
Watch the movie Other People's Money, a quote from the movie delivered by Danny Davito "Whoever dies with the most money wins".

[bioman419]

Well put!

[bioman419]

BTW, the Strike Stoppage was all political. Can't effect the economy with election day upon us.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I never got any tax writeoffs as an employed person, in or out of a union.

Of course you did. You were responding to DAVES comment about untaxed benefits. Did you not have employer provided medical and dental coverage? Was the value of the premiums paid by your employer on your behalf taxed in any way? Umm, no.

So if you were making $20/hour salary, and the premiums were the equivalent of another $4/hour, that portion of compensation flowed to you tax free as a phantom "writeoff".

Keep in mind that if you weren't given medical, dental, and probably other benefits (life insurance?, disability insurance?, food?), you would pay for those things with after tax dollars. Also, you theoretically could have been paid $24/hour instead of $20/hour if your employer didn't choose to buy you benefits as there would be more money available for salaries.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by bioman419

btw, the strike stoppage was all political. Can't effect the economy with election day upon us.

100%

[justjim]

The middle class was doing quite well in 1990 thanks to the Unions. $20.00 a hour wages in 1990 was a living wage for most middle class workers. According to Google, $55.00 per hour today is its equal. With the demise of Unions, the middle class has considerably diminished.

40% of Americans today can’t come up with $400.00 in cash in case of emergencies. Those staying just a bit ahead of the curve are working two jobs. The fortunate Americans, like most of us, complain about minimum wage of $15.00 a hour driving up our cost when we dine out. There are more Billionaires than ever before in the history of our country. Is there something wrong with this picture? Is there an answer? Is there value in a Union?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by ken.yotz

and you call yourself "SAGE"?

Yes, that was absolutely..........I asked for clarification. Oh My.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Johnsocat

We appear to have dodged the bullet for the time being. So, what are we going to learn from it?
Instead of focusing on whether unions are good or bad, how about paying attention to the fact that our Nation's daily way of life and our entire economy rely on IMPORTS.
We can no longer survive as a strong, independent Nation on our own. We can no longer produce the things that are vital to keep us functioning.
So, what are we going to do about it?
Maybe this particular union's actions have a provided a greater value than most believe.

Actually, we CAN produce it all. We CAN be self-sufficient. However, we're not willing to work for low wages and substandard benefits, and we're not willing to pay a premium for products manufactured by people who demand fair wages and benefits.

And so, we import from countries that have gone the authoritarian route, whose workers get paid what the government tells them they get paid, they work for however many hours per day the government tells them they work, with no prospect of "retirement," and they can sell product to us for less than it costs us to make it ourselves as a result.

I'd rather not live like that. I'm not willing for my country to turn into "that." I also would like to pay *less* for things. But in a capitalistic society, the shareholder of the stocks are the boss. If the shareholder says "bring us more profits" then the CEO does whatever he has to, to bring us more profits. He isn't being paid to care about his employees. He's being paid to return higher dividends to shareholders. Period.

[Cuervo]

I've negotiated contracts as a union rep.
When I sat at the table even though I knew my members were asking for something I would never get I would put it on the table. Sometimes this back and forth would last days other times it would last months, but at the end of the day I tried to get the best deal I could for the membership. I represented people, not profits, my goal was to get as much as I could without killing the golden goose.
Did I dislike the people across the table, the answer is no. The people across the table were not the employers most were from H&R and a lawyer. Were they putting something on the table much less than the real employer was willing to offer yes. But it was all part of the game.
See I was trying to get as much as I could for the members and the H&R people were trying to make their employer happy and protect their own job.
I still have a copy of the last contract I negotiated, there are 27 signatures on it 26 were representing the employer and the single one is mine.
Though this ends up being a tennis match, I was the one sitting at the table concerned with people lives. Financially I was not going to gain from whatever we agreed to, the only thing I would get is the respect from the membership.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Cuervo

I've negotiated contracts as a union rep.
When I sat at the table even though I knew my members were asking for something I would never get I would put it on the table. Sometimes this back and forth would last days other times it would last months, but at the end of the day I tried to get the best deal I could for the membership. I represented people, not profits, my goal was to get as much as I could without killing the golden goose.
Did I dislike the people across the table, the answer is no. The people across the table were not the employers most were from H&R and a lawyer. Were they putting something on the table much less than the real employer was willing to offer yes. But it was all part of the game.
See I was trying to get as much as I could for the members and the H&R people were trying to make their employer happy and protect their own job.
I still have a copy of the last contract I negotiated, there are 27 signatures on it 26 were representing the employer and the single one is mine.
Though this ends up being a tennis match, I was the one sitting at the table concerned with people lives. Financially I was not going to gain from whatever we agreed to, the only thing I would get is the respect from the membership.

If the employees were already getting great benefits, great retirement packages, great pay, a great working environment, and great company support - and then the company said "this next contract year we're going to offer the same, plus a 1% increase above the expected cost of living increase across the board" why would you try to fight for more? For every thing you demand from them, you have to sacrifice something. Negotiations are a give and take.

I'd rather my union rep say, "y'know what kids? This year, the union doesn't have to do a thing. The company is top-notch and treats us like the valued members of our company that we have always expected. So this year, we're reducing your union dues by 50%, since we really don't have to do much other than arbitrate disputes, which hardly ever happens anyway."

That'd be swell, in an environment where the company already treats their employees with the respect they deserve in all ways.