[Aces4]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That depends on what they plan on doing with their degree.

You should probably have a degree in medicine if you want to be a doctor.
If you want to be a lawyer, you need a law degree.
A degree in business administration isn't "necessary" but it sure is super-helpful if you want to run a large business. If you want to be HIRED by someone else to run THEIR business, a degree would probably be required.
I wouldn't trust any school teacher that didn't have a degree.
A degree isn't necessary to become an elected official. But the education from attending a university or other higher learning institute would help a candidate open up their mind to new ideas, and I consider that a consideration, even though it's not a requisite.

And I don't trust some teachers who have degrees, there are some real doozies out there. I find many colleges don't open minds but close them, critical thinking is sorely lacking. Employers are looking for bright and INDUSTRIOUS employees who appear to be lacking currently.

I personally think unions are a double edged sword. Have they protected the US worker, often. Have the union leaders been the biggest winners, I believe so. Have they created messy issues with the workers, absolutely.

It was so funny when a relative went to work in a large industrial manufacturing organization and was told by fellow employees to slow down when working, we don't work that fast here. But the union dues are collected every paycheck and they aren't cheap.

[LeRoySmith]

I think there was a time and place for unions, that time is long past.

Does this union protect 'no show' and 'low show' jobs?

How did 50K dockworkers strike at US ports with only 25K jobs?

Sounds like mobsters or at least pay to play. I've worked both union and nonunion and I much prefer the nonunion.

[JRcorvette]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

His salary is +$700k, $1mil house in FL & $2mil house in NJ.

& the silly members are okay with this.

These Unions are ripping off the American people big time. Their demands are outrageous and they are ok with holding goods hostage. Why don’t they as for a small percentage of profits to be distributed instead of crazy high salaries. That could be given on a quarterly bases.

Say hello to even higher inflation!

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Jim1mack

While going to college I worked for the phone in Wisconsin during summers. Their union was Communication Workers of America. The union specified how long it should take to do various tasks. With that, when I got my morning work load I found I could complete it in half a day. Many afternoons I and other workers would take in a matinee or sit in a bar or run household chores. Upon leaving the company's garbage in the morning it was off to a diner first thing for an hour or so breakfast. This union apparently was against maximum productivity.

The father of my girl friend at the time also worked for the phone company and was a union steward. He got both I and my girl friend jobs there. I do thank him for that. It paid quite well.

And during that time that you worked for the company and were very well paid for less than fully productive effort, did the company make money? Did the stockholders see some gains, and most importantly, were the workers able to have a single parent make enough to buy a house and send their kid to college and the worker got a pension?

Wasn't that a time when the middle class was thriving not dying? Much of the credit for the health of the middle class was because of unions.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by blueash

And during that time that you worked for the company and were very well paid for less than fully productive effort, did the company make money? Did the stockholders see some gains, and most importantly, were the workers able to have a single parent make enough to buy a house and send their kid to college and the worker got a pension?

Wasn't that a time when the middle class was thriving not dying? Much of the credit for the health of the middle class was because of unions.

So you're saying that it's okay that the employees were intentionally less productive as long as the company made money and the stockholders gained? Jeez, you have clearly never owned a business. If any of my employees intentionally slacked off, they'd be gone.

[Johnsocat]

The median income in The Villages is around $73k. The Villages, FL | Data USA
Whereas the median income in The U.S in 2022 was 74k.
Income in the United States: 2022

I do not view that as Villagers being "affluent". I view that as average middle class.

Originally Posted by GoRedSox!

I really try to post as objectively as I can, using real data and I try to leave my biases out of it. It's not really possible to do that 100%, but I try.

For context, I was on the right side of things. It was fortunate for me. I received stock options as part of my compensation. I received a yearly bonus and a raise. I didn't need a union....but the truth be told, the folks who did the majority of the work could certainly have used one.

The statistics are there. The average American worker has gotten killed in this country over the past 40 years, with meager gains in real wages. Corporate profits have been astonishingly high, as the investor class will tell you. 50 years ago, many employees had a defined pension plan that would augment Social Security with guaranteed income. Now, almost no workers get such a plan and are left to make their own investment choices and manage a 401(k). CEO and top management pay has gone way, way up, not so much the average American worker. Wealth disparity is at a 100% year high. Health insurance benefits seem to shift cost share to employees every passing year. Millions of good American jobs have been offshored overseas to cheaper labor who don't get many, if any, benefits.

The above is all true. The Villages is a relatively affluent retirement community, so I expect that the majority of folks who read this have fared better than the average American. But there are many, many retirees trying to live on Social Security and not much else, or having to work part-time jobs well into their 70's.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is to all this....I am not an expert....maybe it's not unions, maybe it is....but the current status quo is not working great for the working man and woman in this country.

[mikempp]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox!

The world is not passing us by. That's just plain false. We are by far the most affluent country in the world. We have the best economy in the world, by far.

Unions will always be a target by those who prefer that profits go to corporations, their CEO's and senior management and shareholders, rather than working people. The middle class was strongest in this country when unions were strongest. This is indisputable economic facts.

These workers just got a 61.5% raise over the next 6 years. I think the union just did a great job. This one the heels of the UAW getting 40% increase over 4 years and Shawn Fain doing a great job. The folks who run these ports have seen their profits soar 350% over the last 10 years. I am glad the working man and woman is getting a fair share of that in this latest negotiation.

The economy all over the world is a mess, just because our is slightly better is no consultation and certainly not cause for a victory lap.

[Johnsocat]

What I tried to point out was this threat made highly visible to every American citizen our dependence on IMPORTS and highlighted a HUGE National Security vulnerability.
Yet, no one is talking about this very real threat to our daily lives and what we can do to reduce that threat.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

"our Nation's daily way of life and our entire economy rely on IMPORTS." Few could afford their current lifestyle if they had to pay for the American worker to produce it, The dock workers have a monopoly on a bottle neck/ potential strangle hold on goods coming into the country, any move make their job more efficient will be fought over to maintain their power

[Stu from NYC]

Too much power in the hands of business or unions is no good for our economy.

Big unions have been the death of quite a few large businesses and put lots of people out of work.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting RedSox's post. When they say "won't make it to 65" they mean "won't choose to wait to retire until they turn 65, which is the full retirement age." Has nothing to do with dying, and everything to do with retiring from the work force and choosing to take their earned social security checks.

He's wrong on that point, as well...

I posted the numbers published by the SSA...

[kingofbeer]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

The latest strike is a great example of the lack of value.

Yes they wanted wages but they want job security thru the lack of automation.
That's nuts.
Of all these striking ports, "represented" by the union........none of them are in the Top 50 efficient ports in the world.
What's that light in the tunnel??

Pretty sad the USA labor is not a leader, it's not even close.
The cost of labor protectionism.

The vast majority of people don't want or need union representation.

Don't understand people in unions.

Haters are going to hate. Unions protect jobs and improve the lives of everyday workers. I pity those middle-class and lower income, ham and eggers who "hate unions". I was a union member, when I was in high school and worked in a grocery store and the union worked for me.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Jim1mack

There are companies where perhaps a union is/was not needed. Many years ago I asked someone who worked in the manufacturing part of a huge, well-known company if they had a union. The response was, “We don’t need one.”

Also, said company made a lot of regular people very comfortable through profit-sharing. Can you imagine if companies like Walmart, for example, would have made profit-sharing available to ALL employees. Not only would there have been a lot of loyal employees on those cash registers, etc., just think of the learning experience that would have come from owning stock.

But a lot of companies plan to earn huge profits on the backs of employees and never consider how effective company stock all-around can be in moving a company forward with loyal employees. For companies that do not have stock, there are other ways to keep loyal employees and keep unions at bay. The employers’ choice to exploit is what brings in unions.

I am not saying all unions are perfect. But if unions are stomped into non-existence by those who have motives that risk our future overall economy, we will turn into another country.

This thread is going to turn into union-bashing. I can feel those wagons circling already.

Of course, most of those circling up will be the same people who expect teachers to devote their lives to working for basically nothing.

My point is — the middle class has been the backbone of our economy. Unions were instrumental in creating a strong middle class. If we lose our middle class, we are done. Unrestrained greed is bad

Walmart -does- offer stock options to all employees...

which walmart employees are eligible for stock options - Google Search

[JustSomeGuy]

Originally Posted by dadcat

This country was founded by a union. 13 colonies, remember? Organized labor. Or do you prefer self checkout while the person who was at a register is now unemployed? Union Ironworker for 40 years, I have what I have because of it. Proud of it!

Well, the group that declared independence was a "Confederation of States" - The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first written constitution of the United States. Written in 1777 and stemming from wartime urgency, its progress was slowed by fears of central authority and extensive land claims by states. It was not ratified until March 1, 1781.

Under these articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. Significantly, The Articles of Confederation named the new nation “The United States of America.”

The Constitution, adopted in 1787, used the words "in order to form a more perfect union, establish this constitution," which outlined the current 3 branches of government (not a union like the Iron Workers, it was describing improving the Confederation of States by implementing the three branch government we have today.(We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.) (Defence is spelled that way in the Constitution, old spelling)
Self Checkout? Cause by the increase in minimum wage to 15.00 in most states. Unions backed this increase because the starting rate in most union contracts is also tied to the minimum wage rates and include an automatic increase in pay if the minimum wage goes up.

Traditionally, unions have supported minimum wage initiatives because their contracts have been directly or indirectly tied to the minimum wage. For instance, UNITE contract that covered workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Jersey said the following: "Whenever the federal legal minimum wage is increased, minimum wage [in the agreement] shall be increased so that each will be at least fifteen (15%) percent higher than such legal minimum wage.”

Contracts for Cal Fire Local 2881, which represents 6,000 California firefighters, and UFCW Local 1099’s agreement with CVS have had similar stipulations. Other contracts, such as those signed by Retail, Wholesale, & Chain Store Food Employees Union Local 338 and UFCW 1262, also stipulated that minimum wage increases trigger an automatic return to the bargaining table, where new -- usually higher -- compensation is negotiated. The Center for Union Facts estimates that unions may have spent over $70 million on the Fight for $15 since 2012. Why Do Unions Fund The Fight For $15 Minimum Wage? Because They Gain A Financial Windfall In Return

When technology/automation becomes cheaper than human labor, companies shift to automation. Ironically, one of the key issues in the longshoreman's contract dispute is the shift to automation. That was not a concern when they were promoting the change in minimum wage. This is proven by corporations like Walmart returning to human labor when self checkout theft exceeds human labor costs (they are removing self checkout from Walmart stores with theft issues now. Notice that grocery stores have self checkout at stores without theft issues but not in areas where theft is an issue. You can see this demonstrated in the area around the villages...)

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

So you're saying that it's okay that the employees were intentionally less productive as long as the company made money and the stockholders gained? Jeez, you have clearly never owned a business. If any of my employees intentionally slacked off, they'd be gone.

And you are certain I never owned a business. And like so many certainties posted here, yours is wrong. I very much was a principle owner of a very successful business with well paid employees who had health insurance, disability insurance, 401 K with a match, 4 weeks vacation after 10 years, paid time off for illness or any personal needs which increased with increased years. And if I'd paid them less and fewer benefits which was common in my town and my industry I'd have made more myself.
But I had so many long term employees who appreciated their benefits and that I was not a slave driver.

So you're wrong.

[Bay Kid]

And just like that they made more funny money for all.