Worker Unions (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    664
    Reaction score
    683
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline
    Unions are good. In many lines of work, if you as one of many employees don’t want to be bent over by your employer who proceeds to have its way with you, a union gives you some control over your professional life. It gives you the power of the group versus the individual against the corporation And it offers job protections so you can’t arbitrarily be fired in a dispute, Union naysayers will counter with “you can always quit! “ which is true, but when you have a job that is valuable, and may include a pension, it is worth fighting for, For most cases a union is the only mechanism that gives workers any power and protection.

    My first significant job was the US Military, no unions there, but this was a situation where pay and many work provisions were determined by Congress, and yes, the needs of the military took precedence over your life. I stayed for 9 years, it involved long periods of family separation, but I was lucky enough to be in during the Cold War, without an active war. After separating from the USN, I was hired as an airline pilot and was introduced to the union, in my case ALPA, Airline Pilots Association.

    Not all unions are good unions, they are only as good as their leadership, which is no different on the employer side of the equation. Some unions have made unrealistic demands and actually harmed their jobs, some walk off professional cliffs when they're all fired. I was lucky enough to be in one of the best unions comprised of highly skilled professional people who were not easy to replace, because too much training involved, and experience is required. That is a huge factor in the equation. But any large group has an advantage. They won’t always prevail, but for them even to exist, the backing of the Federal Government is vital. When considering worker’s rights, the right to unionize is a must

    Take a look at the Writer’s strike, and now rhe looming Screen Actors Guild Strike. One of the items on the agenda is job protection from Artificial Intelligence. The Corporate Capitalists have been destroying domestic jobs for 5 decades as millions of jobs have been shipped out of the Country for shareholder profit at the expense of the former employee,it can be argued at the expense of the Nation. Look at the industrial robots where hundreds of thousands found employment, now lost. Do you think that AI will be any different?? NOPE.

    In the USA, the 20th Century’s New Deal was just a temporary reprieve from life at the hands of the Robber Barrons. And WWII were the US got a huge economic boost by virtue of being the major country left economically intact. This is why I continue to argue that Capitalism will eventually fail, when it no longer servers the majority. In fact it can be argued that it’s not served the majority for decades as our domestic Middle Class evaporates. Under Capitolidm, AI will just be another tool to disenfranchise workers, even as the domestic buying power is canabalized so a smaller and smaller group of people can live comfortabley, and even less become filthy rich.

    This is not an argument against technological advancement which is inevitable. It is an argument against Capitalism, at least not regulated enough Capitalism, and for something that will carry most, if not all of us, forward economically. Highly regulated Capitalism with wealth caps might do it, or possibly socialism. But for Socialism to work requires an attitude adjustment by the majority, And no matter what we choose corruption is unacceptable, it destroys any economic system. Corruption is the reason why Communism has been so bad.


     
    Last edited:
    The point of that story is not to declare that my buddy is "very rich". I'm just pointing out the relativity/subjective nature of what "rich" is. I posted something in the same vain on SR, about something that happened to me.

    You obviously have a problem with multibillionaires that goes beyond mere economics.


    I read the OP, and wanted to write a longish reply, but what caught my eye was this comment:
    Corruption is the reason why Communism has been so bad.

    That's what I replied to, and that's what was expanded upon in my conversation with Huntn. So, I didn't think anyone was advocating for system-wide Communism.
    I do. Because their influence goes beyond economics.
    When we get to a place where one person can finance both Presidential campaigns, along with every Senate campaign and half of Congress (both sides) and not miss the money, we have a problem.
     
    I wouldn’t have agreed with this sentiment when I was young, but what we are seeing happen in America today is arguably because of the insane wealth accumulated by quite a few people during the past few decades.

    We have some very loud, basically incompetent billionaires (and I don’t mean Trump-type billionaires, I mean the hundreds-of-billions types). They can cause enough chaos on their own. But we also have the quiet ones, the ones who buy themselves a Supreme Court, and almost one entire political party. The ones who are trying to abolish public education, trying to put women back to second class citizenship, trying to steer the US toward authoritarianism.

    They see the immense wealth that Putin’s Russia generates for the oligarchs, they see the immense wealth guaranteed for the oligarchs of the Middle East. They want that here. It will be the end of American democracy.
     
    You don't have to even leave our borders to see different levels of "rich."

    On the west coast, in the cities, a family making over $200k and owning a $1MM home is middle class.

    You are rich in the south at that.

    But nobody who is talking about taxing the rich is talking about these people. Or even professional athletes or most CEOs - including Andy Jassy the CEO of Amazon.

    We are talking about those who sit on trillions. More than the US's annual GDP. Literally sit on it. The aren't using it for why the FF's created a central currency - to promote trade not hoarding.

    Taxing existing wealth at a certain point makes sense. Our system is already bracketed. This would add one more bracket (we need like 5 more, but I digress). Each bracket has its own rates and levers. This would be no different.

    But let's start simpler. Just remove the earnings cap on SS contributions and instate a portfolio tax of 3% for every $1 billion amassed. And give a tax incentive for investing in new or existing American companies or infrastructure. Very quickly, the couple of hundred Americans that this affected, would be incentivized to take their wealth and invest in businesses instead of paying taxes.

    Creating a fiber network in rural areas would become an attractive alternative to paying tax. Etc.
     
    For reference-

    Adding a portfolio tax for the 724 billionaires would add $260 billion a year and removing the earnings cap for SS would add $425 billion over five years
    They should have removed the earning cap for SS a long time ago. If they would have we wouldn’t be facing a potential shortfall in 10 years.
     
    Very moving.

    Are you getting paid slave wages from the airline you fly with? Do you know why you have a job? Or better said, the conditions that created your job? What do you fly? Cargo? People? God forbid, private? Do you think Communism would support the 45,000+ flights a day that occur in the U.S.?

    How big is your house? You rent? Own? Does it have more rooms that people living in the house? Would you like to have the government either move people into your house or take your house from you and give it to a bigger family; while putting you in a studio?

    I feel people have the impression that a Socialist or Communist U.S. will just take all the money from the very rich and distribute it equally, and everyone will live better than they live now. But that is not how it works.

    I told the story before, but I was discussing MX politics with a friend. He too complains about the "very rich" in MX, and thinks the government should take their money and give it to the people, so I told him: "You straight up own 4 houses, 3 of which bring you income as rentals, plus you are the region manager (the 3 States of the Yucatan Peninsula) for the largest lab in MX. I have bad news for you: for over 50% of the MX population, you are the very rich".

    And to be clear, I am not saying Capitalism is some sort of panacea where everyone lives happily ever after, nor am I opposed to social programs that benefit the common welfare of the people, or that reform is needed in certain areaas, but Communism? Come on.
    I’m glad you support social programs. Hopefully you support social safety nets too. I know that Communism has a terrible track record, the issue is management by enabled corrupted, power hungery people. People are what stands in the way of a successful Communist system not rife with corruption.

    But this is also true to a lesser degree about Capitalism as evidenced by a system that allow billionaires while millions struggle with everyday living. Capitalism is built on slave wages, accruing wealth to befit self at the expense of others. There maybe a moral element that exists (or used to exist) in some corners, but the stifler of morality is competition, investors who expect not just profits, but the need to make “maximum profits”, and idea that developed during the “Greed is good” 1980s. fork morality, if we can find someone willing to work for peanuts all the more profits for me! Which reduces the botton tier workers to be pseudo-team members, expendable, expected to work for ….slave wages as the term is popularly coined.

    As a pilot for a major airline I was paid and lived well, because I was lucky enough to choose work in a skilled, not easily replaced profession. A portion of the time I was working, management schemed to import foreign workers at slave wages to displace domestic flight attendants. They dumped mechanics who demanded a pay raise and went with (qualified on paper) but unqualified contractors. Management tends to view workers as their little drones designed to enable the good life for the real team composed exclusively of the management food change. I acknowledge this is a generalization and there are exceptions. But Capitalism tends to bring out the worst characteristics of people, any circumstance, or system like Communism that allows people to take advantage of one another. The problem is us. Do we deserve to succeed as a species? :unsure:
     
    I’m glad you support social programs. Hopefully you support social safety nets too. I know that Communism has a terrible track record, the issue is management by enabled corrupted, power hungery people. People are what stands in the way of a successful Communist system not rife with corruption.

    But this is also true to a lesser degree about Capitalism as evidenced by a system that allow billionaires while millions struggle with everyday living. Capitalism is built on slave wages, accruing wealth to befit self at the expense of others. There maybe a moral element that exists (or used to exist) in some corners, but the stifler of morality is competition, investors who expect not just profits, but the need to make “maximum profits”, and idea that developed during the “Greed is good” 1980s. fork morality, if we can find someone willing to work for peanuts all the more profits for me! Which reduces the botton tier workers to be pseudo-team members, expendable, expected to work for ….slave wages as the term is popularly coined.

    As a pilot for a major airline I was paid and lived well, because I was lucky enough to choose work in a skilled, not easily replaced profession. A portion of the time I was working, management schemed to import foreign workers at slave wages to displace domestic flight attendants. They dumped mechanics who demanded a pay raise and went with (qualified on paper) but unqualified contractors. Management tends to view workers as their little drones designed to enable the good life for the real team composed exclusively of the management food change. I acknowledge this is a generalization and there are exceptions. But Capitalism tends to bring out the worst characteristics of people, any circumstance, or system like Communism that allows people to take advantage of one another. The problem is us. Do we deserve to succeed as a species? :unsure:
    And yep all that was done in an industry that gets giant breaks and billions un handouts from our uncle Sam. Billions after 9/11 billions after the pandemic. Heck even the smaller planes that run avgas still rain poisonous lead on us.

    The system is broken when your uncle gives out billions and billions. When needing handouts from our unkle sam during covid it didn't dent CEO pay one bit. Well honestly the system is totally broken

    If we truly were the capitalist country everyone crys about not one of those companies would need a hand out or a break. They are on the tits milking more than any social safety programs.
     
    And yep all that was done in an industry that gets giant breaks and billions un handouts from our uncle Sam. Billions after 9/11 billions after the pandemic. Heck even the smaller planes that run avgas still rain poisonous lead on us.

    The system is broken when your uncle gives out billions and billions. When needing handouts from our unkle sam during covid it didn't dent CEO pay one bit. Well honestly the system is totally broken

    If we truly were the capitalist country everyone crys about not one of those companies would need a hand out or a break. They are on the tits milking more than any social safety programs.

    This ^ seems like a perfect time to post this
     
    I’m glad you support social programs. Hopefully you support social safety nets too. I know that Communism has a terrible track record, the issue is management by enabled corrupted, power hungery people. People are what stands in the way of a successful Communist system not rife with corruption.

    But this is also true to a lesser degree about Capitalism as evidenced by a system that allow billionaires while millions struggle with everyday living. Capitalism is built on slave wages, accruing wealth to befit self at the expense of others. There maybe a moral element that exists (or used to exist) in some corners, but the stifler of morality is competition, investors who expect not just profits, but the need to make “maximum profits”, and idea that developed during the “Greed is good” 1980s. fork morality, if we can find someone willing to work for peanuts all the more profits for me! Which reduces the botton tier workers to be pseudo-team members, expendable, expected to work for ….slave wages as the term is popularly coined.

    As a pilot for a major airline I was paid and lived well, because I was lucky enough to choose work in a skilled, not easily replaced profession. A portion of the time I was working, management schemed to import foreign workers at slave wages to displace domestic flight attendants. They dumped mechanics who demanded a pay raise and went with (qualified on paper) but unqualified contractors. Management tends to view workers as their little drones designed to enable the good life for the real team composed exclusively of the management food change. I acknowledge this is a generalization and there are exceptions. But Capitalism tends to bring out the worst characteristics of people, any circumstance, or system like Communism that allows people to take advantage of one another. The problem is us. Do we deserve to succeed as a species? :unsure:


    What I see here is extremes. There are many more options than extreme capitalism and communism. But that is a trend that I have noticed a lot in the US -even among my old friends and schoolmates. You seem to think in dualities. Maybe that is a way of thinking that is grounded in your school system. I have never encountered so many multiple choice exams as I did, during the years in the US. Everything is either rigth or wrong. In the Danish school system you will only get a C if you give the "right" answer without providing any information on what made you reach that answer and that answer often contains multiple elements and not just true/false.

    We dont see the political spectrum as a straight line with communism at one end and fascism at the other but rather as a circle where fascism and communism are way closer to each other than they are with conservatism, liberalism, social democracy or socialism and with many other "isms" intermixed.

    A social democracy is both capitalistic and Socialism, It contains a strong element of government ownership and regulation of essential services like utillities, schools, hospitals, transportation and will often provide these services at cost or free. Liberalism is both capitalism but also contains a strong belief in individual freedom and personal responsibility but also an element of social justice.
     
    What I see here is extremes. There are many more options than extreme capitalism and communism. But that is a trend that I have noticed a lot in the US -even among my old friends and schoolmates. You seem to think in dualities. Maybe that is a way of thinking that is grounded in your school system. I have never encountered so many multiple choice exams as I did, during the years in the US. Everything is either rigth or wrong. In the Danish school system you will only get a C if you give the "right" answer without providing any information on what made you reach that answer and that answer often contains multiple elements and not just true/false.

    We dont see the political spectrum as a straight line with communism at one end and fascism at the other but rather as a circle where fascism and communism are way closer to each other than they are with conservatism, liberalism, social democracy or socialism and with many other "isms" intermixed.

    A social democracy is both capitalistic and Socialism, It contains a strong element of government ownership and regulation of essential services like utillities, schools, hospitals, transportation and will often provide these services at cost or free. Liberalism is both capitalism but also contains a strong belief in individual freedom and personal responsibility but also an element of social justice.
    I agree that we are overly conditioned to see everything as being binary and zero-sum. I always preferred and did better on short answer tests than multiple choice. I've never been fond of regurgitation.

    I think the best system is one that takes a socialist approach on insuring everyone has their essential needs met and a capitalist approach on luxuries. Everyone gets basic shelter with the opportunity to personally earn a mansion. Everyone gets clean air, water and food with the opportunity to personally earn a seat at a 3 star restaurant.
     
    What I see here is extremes. There are many more options than extreme capitalism and communism. But that is a trend that I have noticed a lot in the US -even among my old friends and schoolmates. You seem to think in dualities. Maybe that is a way of thinking that is grounded in your school system. I have never encountered so many multiple choice exams as I did, during the years in the US. Everything is either rigth or wrong. In the Danish school system you will only get a C if you give the "right" answer without providing any information on what made you reach that answer and that answer often contains multiple elements and not just true/false.

    We dont see the political spectrum as a straight line with communism at one end and fascism at the other but rather as a circle where fascism and communism are way closer to each other than they are with conservatism, liberalism, social democracy or socialism and with many other "isms" intermixed.

    A social democracy is both capitalistic and Socialism, It contains a strong element of government ownership and regulation of essential services like utillities, schools, hospitals, transportation and will often provide these services at cost or free. Liberalism is both capitalism but also contains a strong belief in individual freedom and personal responsibility but also an element of social justice.
    I like the idea of a socialist democracy, but you must have high levels of regulation, wealth caps, social safety nets, basically share the wealth.

    Here is a philosophical question- In a socialist democracy, if there are a lot of people who want to sit home and veg, doing nothing but have sex and entertain themselves, the system should feed and house them, but it would/should be meager, and it would be vital to exercise reproductive control, reversible sterilization, otherwise the sysytem might break down. In any case corruption if allowed would bugger the whole setup.

    If you think about the Startrek Socialist Utopia where everyone is fee to explore their potential and not worry and room and board, I think most people would want to explore their potential. You would not be asked to spend your life pushing a broom, or handing people food over a counter. And I think those who have more value based on their contribions to society, should have more privaledges, but again it falls back on not allowing corruption, a fair merit based system, or it would not be sustainable. I just don’t think we are capable of this. If you look at people under Communism, it tends to become a cesspool of corruption.

    Simultaneously, I see Capitalism as it exists today headed for an implosion. :unsure:
     
    This ^ seems like a perfect time to post this

    Don’t look for morality in Corporations. What little there is, is stamped out because of competition and shareholders. All of the employees should be significant shareholders, that benefit from the wealth that the company generates, not token shareholders. Capitalism generates huge wealth and where it falls apart is how the people in charge choose to distribute that wealth. Walmart is the perfect example of what people do to people where they are in a position to act freely. Share the wealth with your workers? HELL NO!
     
    Last edited:
    I like the idea of a socialist democracy, but you must have high levels of regulation, wealth caps, social safety nets, basically share the wealth.

    Here is a philosophical question- In a socialist democracy, if there are a lot of people who want to sit home and veg, doing nothing but have sex and entertain themselves, the system should feed and house them, but it would/should be meager, and it would be vital to exercise reproductive control, reversible sterilization, otherwise the sysytem might break down. In any case corruption if allowed would bugger the whole setup.

    If you think about the Startrek Socialist Utopia where everyone is fee to explore their potential and not worry and room and board, I think most people would want to explore their potential. You would not be asked to spend your life pushing a broom, or handing people food over a counter. And I think those who have more value based on their contribions to society, should have more privaledges, but again it falls back on not allowing corruption, a fair merit based system, or it would not be sustainable. I just don’t think we are capable of this. If you look at people under Communism, it tends to become a cesspool of corruption.

    Simultaneously, I see Capitalism as it exists today headed for an implosion. :unsure:


    I think you misunderstand something about a Social-democracy. People are really not allowed to sit home and veg if they in any way are able to work - even if it is only 5 hours a week. They will be offered multiple levels of help to get them back out as a productive member of society. That could be education, on-the job training, mentoring, treatment (if ill or suffering from mental illness or addictions), or jobs specifically designed to fit their abilities - could be 8 hours work a week with supplemental pay from the state. If you have a handicap of any kind, the state will pay for necessary equipment needed for you to remain in an existing/get a new job. I have some special equipment at my job because I am hearing impaired and it was provided for free to me to use at the office when attending in-person meetings. So the aim is clearly to get as many people working at whatever capacity they are able to and not just to sit at home. And no - this is not broom pushing. They really try to find something that match both interests and abillities, because that is how they get the best results
     
    Last edited:
    I think you misunderstand something about a Social-democracy. People are really not allowed to sit home and veg if they in any way are able to work - even if it is only 5 hours a week. They will be offered multiple levels of help to get them back out as a productive member of society. That could be education, on-the job training, treatment (if ill or suffering from mental illness or addictions), or jobs specifically designed to fit their abilities - could be 8 hours work a week with supplemental pay from the state. If you have a handicap of any kind, the state will pay for necessary equipment needed for you to remain in an existing/get a new job. I have some special equipment at my job because I am hearing impaired and it was provided for free to me to use at the office when attending in-person meetings. So the aim is clearly to get as many people working at whatever capacity they are able to and not just to sit at home.
    More American binary thinking.

    Slave for 80hrs a week or sit at home, inert as a sponge.
     
    I do. Because their influence goes beyond economics.
    When we get to a place where one person can finance both Presidential campaigns, along with every Senate campaign and half of Congress (both sides) and not miss the money, we have a problem.

    And I don't disagree with you. The only comment I'd add, that's not really a function of Capitalism, but plain old human greed and desire for power, which you can find in any socio-economic model, since times untold.

    MX is basically a socialist country with Capitalistic features. MX has national healthcare, national free education all the way to post-graduate, power production and delivery are State owned, oil production and most of the delivery is State owned, since 1934 there is a program to return land to indigenous people, gold/silver/lithium mines are owned by the State, very stringent rules about elections, a list of basic foods that are priced controlled, and so forth and so on... that all sounds great, and I guess if the people in power would follow the law and weren't greedy for both power and money, it would be great, but spend a few months here, and you'll see the effects of the greed for power and money.
     
    I’m glad you support social programs. Hopefully you support social safety nets too. I know that Communism has a terrible track record, the issue is management by enabled corrupted, power hungery people. People are what stands in the way of a successful Communist system not rife with corruption.
    But that's the thing: you'll find enabled, corrupted, power hungry people in every socio-economic system. I'm just going to copy and paste what i posted above, but if you look SoTB, MX is basically a socialist country with Capitalistic features. MX has national healthcare, national free education all the way to post-graduate, power production and delivery are State owned, oil production and most of the delivery is State owned, since 1934 there is a program to return land to indigenous people, gold/silver/lithium mines are owned by the State, very stringent rules about elections, a list of basic foods that are priced controlled, and so forth and so on... that all sounds great, and I guess if the people in power would follow the law and weren't greedy for both power and money, it would be great, but spend a few months here, and you'll see the effects of the greed for power and money.

    For all of the social safety nets, a large portion of the population still struggles.


    Capitalism is built on slave wages, accruing wealth to befit self at the expense of others.
    You keep saying "slave wages". What are "slave wages"? Minimum wage? What's minimum wage these days? $10 an hour? In MX, the minimum wage is kind of complicated since the government put out a list of minimum wages for different jobs, but in average, it is ~$220 pesos a day, which at current rates is about $12. People would say "things are cheaper in MX", and that is true to an extent, but not across the board.

    And manual labor? Cheap. That's why so many people want to cross the border into the U.S.


    There maybe a moral element that exists (or used to exist) in some corners, but the stifler of morality is competition, investors who expect not just profits, but the need to make “maximum profits”, and idea that developed during the “Greed is good” 1980s.
    That ideology has been around for much, much longer than the 80's. Greed has moved humanity since humanity became humanity.

    As a pilot for a major airline I was paid and lived well, because I was lucky enough to choose work in a skilled, not easily replaced profession. A portion of the time I was working, management schemed to import foreign workers at slave wages to displace domestic flight attendants.
    So, again, what are "slave wages"?
    The problem is us.
    Darn skippy.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom