October 10, 2007
Republican Debate
The Republican debate yesterday was held, in of all places, the hometown of Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, Michigan, which is a suburb community of Detroit. The question I couldn’t answer yesterday was: “Why would Republicans choose to debate in a pro-union state with the worst unemployment in the country, after years of Republican rule?
The answer became obvious in the debates, and I couldn't believe my ears. Now, after a bit of homework, I believe my ears, but none of these Republican candidates. To a man, they said they were either for unions or, that some unions 'were' good for America. Do they really expect the public to swallow this manure? .
Twenty two states are "right to work" states, which is a deceptive way of saying, they made it illegal to require workers to join labor unions as a condition of employment. Nearly every one of these states became anti-union under Republican governance. While Mike Pieper, director of the Republican Governors Association, said in 2005, "We don't have an agenda when it comes to labor in one way or another", the right to work laws sing a different tune. Though there were moderate Republican governors who championed, or tolerated, strong union laws in their states, the so called "true Republicans" oppose unions intensely. In this group would be Governors Matt Blunt (Mo.), Mitch Daniels (In.), and Robert Ehrlich (Md.).
In a near party-line vote, their letter they said:
This letter is intended to make all of our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11, and our New York City union officers following that horrific day.Pat Lynch, President of the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, in a (video) interview says: "Rudy couldn't even manage his own police department. He hurt the NYPD."
Republicans choice to host their debate in the hometown of the United Auto Workers, and a state suffering the highest unemployment in the union, is a clear attempt to overcome their party's hostile relationship with America's unions. Mitt Romney said he likes the carpenter's union because they train employees (instead of employers footing that cost), and he declined to recite the unions he doesn't like [audience chuckled] (for the obvious reason that the Michigan's UAW is among them).
Thompson said he was a union member, the Screen Actors Guild. But, his historical record of approval by unions in Tennessee tells a very different story. In 1995 and 96, Thompson's approval percentage ratings by labor organizations were as follows:
- Labor 0 The Teamsters
- Labor 8 AFL-CIO
- Labor 30 Transportation Communications Union
- Labor 0 American Federation of State, County & Munici
- Labor 0 United Auto Workers
- Labor 5 American Federation of Government Employees
- Labor 86 Communications Workers of America
I will leave it to readers to research the record on the other candidates out of the front running. On this issue of Republicans presidential candidates advocating for unions, it was clear that the political lying has begun in earnest. Do we want another lying Republican president in the White House? Count me out. The Constitution guarantees the right of American citizens to lawfully assemble and organize on their own behalf. To be anti-union is to oppose basic rights of assembly and speech in our Constitution.
Oh goodie… I am glad we are back to disagreeing…
“…they made it illegal to require workers to join labor unions as a condition of employment.”
In and of itself, why, exactly, is this bad? Outside of how it may or may not be administered by said governors and/or states (which is the subject of ANOTHER debate, not this one), why is it wrong to allow a company to hire someone without union backing? Better yet… why is it wrong, in and of itself, to not require that a worker pay dues out of his/her paycheck to an organization that does not share their values? An organization that, in the mind of the wrker, does not look out for its members best interests? Why is this wrong?
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at October 10, 2007 01:51 AMTwenty two states are “right to work” states, which is a deceptive way of saying, they made it illegal to require workers to join labor unions as a condition of employment.Are you saying that bad?
I’m neither pro or anti-union, but think people should have a choice to work without being forced to join a union.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2007 03:34 PMI agree with Doug and d.a.n, why is having a choice a bad thing?
Posted by: kctim at October 10, 2007 04:16 PMDavid,
All Americans should have the right to unionize. All Americans should also have the right to refuse to join.
My union reps seem to be a cross between ambivalent and ignorant. Those at the top of the union food chain are basically figure heads who continue to get re-elected based on name recognition w/o ever doing anything for its members.
The Republican party being pro-corporation, pro wealthy, pro wealth disparty and of the power grab frame of mind are of course going to be anti-union. Deregulation to the point of being dangerous and corporate welfare bordering on the absurdly obvious should be a red flag for most American workers/voters but the distraction issues seem to blind most of the voting public.
I guess E Coli in spinach, lead in toys and the largest trade gap in U.S. history are no match for the Gay marriage issue for Republican voters.
Let the Republicans destroy our economy and our military as long as they prevent me from having to see two happy homosexuals w/ benefits.
Democrats pander to the unions but the only people who benefit from their public office are the ones at the top who secured votes through influencing their members and furthering the lie that Democrats care about the average worker. I happen to live in a state that has a Democratic Senator and Governor. They don’t take my calls, but they do accept calls from the developers, wealthy contributors, union Presidents with member numers and an axe to grind and special interests groups.
Ummm…..I have lived in Michigan the majority of my life and have never noticed this so called “Republican Rule” you speak of?????? In fact you can 100% count on it falling blue in any election.
For some reason or another Michiganders fight largly for unions…….they fight themselves right out of jobs….I don’t get it, but our legislaters here have them convinced that they are fighting against evil corporations that are going overseas……I never knew the lower 49 were overseas…but, try telling them that…lolol
I do have a good joke though:
A Japanese doctor says, “Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in 6 wks.”
A German doctor says, “That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in 4 wks.”
A British doctor says, “In my country medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of them out looking for work in 2 wks.”
The Canadian doctor, not to be outdone, interjected,
“You guys are way behind.”
“We took a woman with no brains, sent her to Michigan where she became governor, and now half of the state is out looking for work”!!
HeeHee………just a little Wednesday humor….lol
Rather than argue against union bias in either direction here, I will offer what one Republican candidate in the debate had to say: (paraphrasing) as the middle class shrinks and the poor expand, and real wages continue their downward trek, and job security becomes non-existent, this nation will embrace unions like a drowning man embraces a life preserver in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2007 05:53 PM
Traci, your point is well made. The UAW has indeed priced their membership out of work. Excesses by unions are just as devastating to workers as excesses by owners and management. The GM deal this last 10 days, was an example of the way management and union should work together to solve a problem which enhances the corporate future as well as workers. It can be done correctly by both unions and management. But, it requires non-ideologues at the management levels of both business and union. In other words, it requires open and pragmatic leadership and partnership. That is tougher to find, especially in large powerful unions and giant corporations.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2007 05:59 PM
Surprise, surprise, we have corupt union officials just like we have corupt corporate bosses and corrupt politicians. I wonder who’s fault that is?
I can no longer see a need for unions or any of the laws that they sponsored and fought for. It is now safe for us to trust the benevolence of our bosses. They will pay us generously and take care of us when we are ill. Our bosses will never ask us to work in unsafe conditions and would never just throw us out in the street if we get injured. As a matter of fact, things would be a lot better if we could just go back to the days before the unions became strong. There wouldn’t be no sending our dollar a day jobs to Communist China then.
Posted by: jlw at October 10, 2007 07:35 PMRather than argue against union bias in either direction here, I will offer what one Republican candidate in the debate had to say: (paraphrasing) as the middle class shrinks and the poor expand, and real wages continue their downward trek, and job security becomes non-existent, this nation will embrace unions like a drowning man embraces a life preserver in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.A good union hangs together and has honest leadership.
However, I’m not sure unions are the problem or solution. Corpocrisy, corporatism, and corporations’ influence on government is a serious problem, as our politicians sell us out practically on a daily basis.
However, the steady worsening disparity trend is most likely due to a combination of more significant factors (regressive systems) that have been slowly chipping away at the middle (and lower) income groups for over 30 years now (see chart).
If unions and the majority of Americans want to make a real change, the will have to start doing the simple, safe, common-sense thing they were supposed to be doing all along.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2007 09:58 PMI fail to see why it’s bad to allow employees to work for a company without having to join a union. To me that’s just a basic right.
To tell someone they can’t work because they don’t belong to a union is taking food out of their mouth and discriminating against them because they don’t belong to some big organization.
What about the right of folks to choose what’s best for them? Or does that right only apply for things you support?
I don’t believe for one second that any of the Republican candidates are pro union. And I think the voters will see right through it.
Like ya said the lying has began. Or more accurately, it’s shifting into campaign mode.
Hey Traci, the Japanese, Germans, Brits and Canadians have nothing on American’s — if they belong to a Union.
My husband and I get full coverage health care, and it includes dental, as well as eye doctor visits. All it costs us is having to pay for his Union dues. He also has a fantastic Union pension for our retirement, and with his seniority, he’s now up to five weeks of paid vacation per year. Working in a Union town, he is also has excellent job security.
Solidarity Rocks. Go Union!!!
David:
“as the middle class shrinks and the poor expand, and real wages continue their downward trek, and job security becomes non-existent, this nation will embrace unions like a drowning man embraces a life preserver in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.”
So true. And in fact, this is already starting to happen. Unions are on the rise in America again.
jlw, I really enjoyed your post. Thanks for making me laugh! :^)
Posted by: Adrienne at October 11, 2007 12:57 AMRon, the union argument is simply that if employers can hire non-union people, there will be no union. There are always going to be more people wanting a job for lower wages to take the place of higher wage union workers. Unions say, and logically so, that illegal immigration is the best example of what’s wrong with “right to work” laws. It stacks the deck entirely on the employer’s side to take wages and benefits to the lowest level the unemployed will hire on for.
I think the employees should have the right to vote on whether they remain unionized or not periodically. A majority vote for or against, should prevail for all employees. There is no such thing as collective bargaining if the employer can hire non-union workers after the majority of employees have voted to unionize. On the other hand, employers should have full access to all union members in making their case at bargaining time.
The unemployed in Saginaw, Flint, and Detroit know only two well what the excesses of union leaders have cost them. $25/hr on average for UAW members with full employee paid benefits inevitably led to mass layoffs and loss of market share against foreign manufacturer competitors. It is why the membership arrived at the agreement they did with GM last week. They now recognize GM must cut its cost of manufacturing if it is going to keep making vehicles and employing workers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2007 02:13 AMRight to work, doesn’t mean Unions are illegal, just means you do not have to join one to work.
I live in Michigan, and live 2 miles from Dearborn. Where I work is union, I am a member, and am the President of my Union. Guess what going to the National Union for help is about as good as asking Bush for help.
Unions have helped I agree with that, but at the same time, how can you ask for the world and don’t settle for less. The unions sometimes shoot themselves in the foot, because like the auto workers they get profit sharing. Go on strike, company loses money, workers loss is a lot worse.
Oh on Mitt remember his Dad ran AMC(for you younger folks American Motor Corp), which Chrysler ended up buying out. Of course Mitt is probably anti-UAW.
Unions are good/bad and it is a delicate balance for all involved.
jlw:
I appreciate your saracasm…why? because it’s absolutely true!
Posted by: Rachel at October 11, 2007 10:50 AMRon, the union argument is simply that if employers can hire non-union people, there will be no union. There are always going to be more people wanting a job for lower wages to take the place of higher wage union workers. Unions say, and logically so, that illegal immigration is the best example of what’s wrong with “right to work” laws. It stacks the deck entirely on the employer’s side to take wages and benefits to the lowest level the unemployed will hire on for.That’s true.
And this situation is similar to voting in America.
But removing the choice is going too far (IMO).
It would be like removing peoples’ ability to choose to vote for an independent, and being force to vote for a main party candidate only.
We can’t protect people from their own bad choice.
Otherwise, they will never learn. Painful consequences is sometimes the only real way to learn.
Despite the harsh reality (i.e. stacked deck), there is something very fundamentally wrong with not allowing employees the choice of joining (or not joining) a union.
IF unions are well-run, and have good and honest leadership, and truly represent the workers’ best interests, they should have no problem in getting most workers to join the union.
The unions should have to compete for the loyalty of its members, rather than members being forced to be loyal to the union.
I see where the UAW and Chrysler settled a strike in 5 hours. With the GM deal and this ya reckon maybe the unions are starting to see how they’re screwing up and putting folks out of work and making more concessions?
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 11, 2007 12:31 PMd.a.n said: The unions should have to compete for the loyalty of its members, rather than members being forced to be loyal to the union.
ARGEED 100%
Choice is great!!!!!!!!!
Let me see now??????
1. I can work in a union shop and make $30.00 per hour with good benefits and safe working conditions. Yes I would have to pay a fraction of that for union dues. I would be a good consumer and drive the economy!!!! John Deere and Caterpillar are good union shops with strong unions and communities!!!!!! They are world leaders in their field, they have world wide competition. Yet they are doing great with union labor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They don’t try to blame their employees for all their management short comings!!!!!!!!! They invest in their people, community and their company!!!!!!!! They work hard to stay on the cutting edge and develop the best products for the money!!!!!!!
2. I can work in a non union sweat shop for $6.50 per hour and no benefits and maybe the roof will cave in or if I am lucky maybe not!!!!!!! I will always have the satisfaction knowing I don’t have to pay any union dues!!!!!!!!!! I may have to depend on some type of government program for health care and food for my children!!!!!!
Oh I made my choice!!!!!! #2 is for me!!!!!!!
I don’t want to pay union dues and have that money go to support some one who will try to raise the minimum wage!!!!! The sweat shop where I am going to work may have to close down and move to China!!!!! Then I would have to get a job at Caterpillar!!!!
Outraged,
That’s a good point, if that is indeed the case, and if it were really only that simple.
However, that is not always the case.
Unions must strive for a fair balance.
How long before John Deere and Caterpillar move overseas?
And Unions now have to deal with globalism, corpocrisy, corporatism, politicians and corporation owners selling us out, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.
In a global economy, unions have less and less leverage.
Our own politicians make laws that reward corporations for moving out of the country.
Our own politicians undermine American workers almost every chance the get. Profit is all that matters. And cheap labor in China (population 1.3 Billion) and India (population 1.1 Billion) is plentiful.
If the U.S. is going to compete, it needs better education, but that ain’t happening. In fact, it appears to be declining while growing more expensive, and we are importing the impoverished, less educated, and less skilled by the millions.
The root of the problem must be addressed first.
The root of the problem isn’t just corporations, some that abuse vast wealth and power, and bad government. Half of the problem is too many voters that reward them for all of THIS and THIS with perpetual re-election rates of 95%-to-99% and then appear dumbfounded why politicians are still corrupt ? ! ? Address the fundamentals first, and things will get better.
d.a.n. said: “But removing the choice is going too far (IMO).”
Removing the choice to join must be a collective majority decision. Those workers who don’t want to belong to a union most workers support, have a choice to find another job or career.
On the other hand. The Greatest problem with unions is they have monopolized. If anti-trust laws could apply to unions such that there should be 2 UAW’s (by different names of course) competing for Auto Workers loyalty and vying for the best strategy and partnership with employers, not only would worker’s get more honest and sober representation, but through the competition very likely, better future planning with employers for keeping both employers and workers working in America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2007 02:18 PMd.a.n, but the heart of the problem going forward are these two inevitable facts:
1) unions are coming back, and the more severe globalized competition cuts into working person’s quality of life, the more numerous shall unions and supporters become.
2) Government needs to implement fair trade policies with other nations, NOT free trade. This whole concept of providing favored nation status to other nations who undercut our workers in exchange for other nation’s altering their political structure and rhetoric, has got to end. Or, surely our economic hope for our future will end. We need to insist other nations elevate their worker standards to approximate ours, something Clinton and Bush have paid lip service to, but, failed to back up with contract obligations.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2007 02:27 PMDavid wrote:David, I understand and you make several good points, but I still believe in choice.d.a.n. said: “But removing the choice is going too far (IMO).”Removing the choice to join must be a collective majority decision. Those workers who don’t want to belong to a union most workers support, have a choice to find another job or career.
David wrote: On the other hand. The Greatest problem with unions is they have monopolized. If anti-trust laws could apply to unions such that there should be 2 UAW’s (by different names of course) competing for Auto Workers loyalty and vying for the best strategy and partnership with employers, not only would worker’s get more honest and sober representation, but through the competition very likely, better future planning with employers for keeping both employers and workers working in America.That’s perhaps why Unions should have to compete for the loyalty of employees rather than employees being forced to be loyal to the Union?
David wrote: d.a.n, but the heart of the problem going forward are these two inevitable facts: 1) unions are coming back, and the more severe globalized competition cuts into working person’s quality of life, the more numerous shall unions and supporters become.That’s good. I’m not against Unions that are well mananged and honest, and the more of those that exist, the more clout and leverage workers will have. However, there are other forces at work that undermine that significantly, and Unions will lack real leverage until they address the real fundamental problems (i.e. these 10 regressive systems) that are undermining most Americans daily in dozens of different ways.
David wrote: 2) Government needs to implement fair trade policies with other nations, NOT free trade.That’s right. I agree with that 100%.
But our politicians are selling us out almost every day.
Almost every day, they pass more and more legislation that undermines American workers:
- H1B Visas
- illegal immigration; laws are ignored
- illegal employers are above the law
- in Bush’s 1st term, state and local government created 879,000 new government jobs (government bloat knows no limits; at least until it implodes)
- from 2001 to 2005, there was a loss of 760,000 private sector jobs
- Over these same four years the composition of US jobs changed from higher-paid manufacturing and information technology jobs to lower-paid domestic services.
- While American jobs are being lost, our own politicians, government officials, corporations, and “Free Trade” economists assured us that America was benefitting from the work H1B Visas, work visa programs, and outsourcing. If so, why is the trade balance so unbalanced?
- Since year 1990, the US has been paying for imports by giving foreigners ownership of its assets, and foreigners have accumulated $3.6 Trillion of America’s wealth. Corporations made nice profits too, while the middle can lower income groups continue to get squeezed (which isn’t helped by repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with re-election).
- As America’s high-tech and manufacturing capabilities decline and the nationwide debt grows, the U.S. dollar is losing its position as a world currency.
- During the last 30 years, U.S. corporations have stopped employing Americans to produce the goods that Americans consumed. Employment supported sales, and vice-versa. But there is less and less of that every day. By such shortsighted policies (government and voters that reward them for it) of moving US jobs abroad, our corporations are destroying the American markets.
- Rose-colored-glasses wearing economists assure us that the falling dollar will bring back jobs. Yeah? After we are as poor as Indians and Chinese? So what’s the logic here? By becoming poor, the US can become rich again?
David wrote: This whole concept of providing favored nation status to other nations who undercut our workers in exchange for other nation’s altering their political structure and rhetoric, has got to end.I agree.
But too many voters keep rewarding the very politicians that are selling them out.
Congress enjoys a 95% to 99% re-election rate.
Seat retention after the last election (7-Nov-2007) was 95.6% !
Little if anything changed, and too many voters still don’t understand that rewarding corruption begets more of it.
Until enough voters figure this out, they’ll have to suffer the consequences.
And that is the safety valve.
When things get painful enough, pain will finally trump complacency, apathy, blind partisan loyalty, and laziness.
That unfortunately is the sad truth.
But you have a degree in Psychology, so I’m not tellin’ you nothin’ you don’t already know.
David wrote: Or, surely our economic hope for our future will end.Yes it will. Things have already slipped a long way.
GDP rose in the last 50 years, but the increases went ot the wealthy, while household incomes barely rose despite more workers per household.
The decline has now existed for 31 years (see charts) because of many sinister (but subtly invisible) regressive systems.
Some (but not nearly enough) voters seem are starting to understand what is going on, but they are still too brainwashed to pull the party-lever without even knowing who their senators and representatives are, much less their voting records. And 40% to 50% don’t even bother to vote at all.
Thus, the pain level will need to increase a bit more for a bit longer.
If enough voters figure it out soon enough, things will improve.
But if voters wait too long, the decline will continue as it has already for 31 years.
David wrote: We need to insist other nations elevate their worker standards to approximate ours, something Clinton and Bush have paid lip service to, but, failed to back up with contract obligations.Yes, but they aren’t. We are raing the GDP of those nations, but there too most of the wealth is going to a very few. But then, the governments in those nations are very corrupt too. China has labor laws and even has minimum wage laws, but they are not enforced.
Again, it always comes back to the people.
The people can’t just whine and complain and then do a very strange thing: reward their abusers.
Until enough voters figure it out, they have the government they deserve.
Outraged Sad:I can work in a union shop and make $30.00 per hour with good benefits and safe working conditions.
And then cry about the evil corporations not caring about the employees when they ship your job overseas or go belly up because they can’t compete with the foreign companies.
What you and all the other strong union folks don’t realize is that other countries don’t even pay what a nonunion shop does over here. They can produce the same product for half to three quarters the cost of a nonunion shop and a hell of a lot cheaper than any union shop can. Send it over here and under cut the US product buy enough that the consumer is going to buy their product instead of the made one here, union or nonunion.
An example is the garment industry. When I was a youngin just about every jerk water town here in Georgia had a garment factory of some sort in it. Today your going to hard pressed to find one operating anywhere in the state.
Why? Because Taiwan, Korea, and Japan started shipping their cheaper product over here and selling them for less than the US manufactures could. The consumer started buying the imported products and the US garment manufacturers where pretty much forced out of business.
So go ahead, demand your $30/hour pay. And when John Deere and Caterpillar either close down or ship your job to India to survive, I don’t want to here ya crying. Just remember you and your union are the ones to blame, not the company.
Outraged Said: I can work in a non union sweat shop for $6.50 per hour and no benefits and maybe the roof will cave in or if I am lucky maybe not!
What kind of union lies are you swallowing? I aint heard of a roof falling in on any nonunion shop in the last 60 years or so. If one had you can bet the unions would have made sure it never left the news.
While there are some employers that don’t pay a living wage or give benefits and have shoddy working conditions, they are in the minority. Most employers know that in order to attract and keep good employees they need to pay a decent wage and have some kind of benefit package and have a safe work environment. Good employees won’t stay unless they do.
“Oh I made my choice!!!!!! #2 is for me”
That is what it is all about Outraged, choice. You should be able to work where you want, without having to support something you do not want to.
Just because we believe in choice, does not mean we are anti-union either. If someone wants to be in a union, fine, but the other guy should be able to say he does not want to be union without fear of losing the job.
Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2007 09:20 AM
A company in a right to work state has 500 employees, 400 have joined a union and 100 have refused to join. The union workers negotiate with the company and get a contract which gives the workers a pay raise and a benefit package. Should the workers who refused to join the union and help pay for negotiations receive the same benefits?
What if the company refuses to negotiate and the union members vote to strike? Should the nonunion workers be allowed to continue to work and should they be allowed to bring their brothers, cousins and aunts in to take the union workers jobs?
Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 10:21 AMJLW
The union would represent those who wanted to be represented, so those 100 would not benefit from the unions representation.
They obviously have their own reasons for not wanting to be a part of the union, and those should be respected.
Going on strike is a voluntary option which does not threaten or affect the union big wigs, only the workers. Union leaders not being able to blackmail a company would cause them to put the workers concerns first and fairer and more productive negotiations would happen.
A trucking company in my hometown negotiated with the union and eventually came up with a plan which the majority of the truckers liked alot. It was better than what they had, but did not hurt the company. The union wanted more and would not budge on their demands.
The company refused to be strong-armed and said that is the best we can do and still stay profitable. The union didn’t budge.
The company folded, hundreds lost their jobs and the town suffered. Many of those workers now work in a factory, a gas station, Wal-Mart or some place, making much less than they did before the strike.
Life is a risk and each individual should have a say in how they live it.
Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2007 11:50 AMkctim said: “Just because we believe in choice, does not mean we are anti-union either. “
That’s a crock of dung. Unions have no power whatsoever if scabs and non-union employees can be brought in to replace union workers. To be for worker choice, as in the individual’s choice to avoid the majority worker’s decision to unionize, is ANTI-UNION, since, it makes the union powerless and irrelevant.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 05:02 PMKctim said: “Just because we believe in choice, does not mean we are anti-union either. “
I have to agree with that. Choice is important. Much like voting. The consequences can be painful, but that’s our choice.
Ron:
“And then cry about the evil corporations not caring about the employees when they ship your job overseas or go belly up because they can’t compete with the foreign companies.”
Ron, the real reason these companies have been shipping our jobs out of the country has to do with greed, pure and simple. It’s not that corporations can’t compete with the foreign market, the real problem is the CEO’s and top management wanting to keep their insanely extravagant salaries at the expense of our jobs. And the truth is, most corporations have not gone belly up at all. They’re still in business, but now they’re using workers in the third world and paying them next to nothing. As for being competitive, American workers are still among the most productive and efficient workers in the entire world, despite the fact that their wages have been stagnated, and many no longer have affordable health care.
“What you and all the other strong union folks don’t realize is that other countries don’t even pay what a nonunion shop does over here.”
What you don’t seem to realize is that that isn’t the point. The point is that these are American companies owned by American’s that don’t feel any loyalty towards their country or their fellow citizens at all. These people have no interest in rewarding all the hard work that built up their companies in the first place, by wanting to see those same workers and their families enjoy a decent quality of life.
And who the hell is supposed to buy so many their products if not for the American people? Ever ask yourself that little question, Ron? They want to be able to profit from the ravenous consumer society they’ve intentionally built up with the help of Madison Avenue, yet if they keep going the way they have been, there’s not going to be that vast market of consumers that they’ve been enjoying for so many decades.
“They can produce the same product for half to three quarters the cost of a nonunion shop and a hell of a lot cheaper than any union shop can.”
Yeah, and that cheapness certainly shows, doesn’t it? Cheap pieces of crap built with wage-slave labor, rather than a strong and healthy and happy workforce that takes a great deal of pride in what they do. Not only does using that cheap labor completely rip off their customers, it’s a bad business model the entire country ends up paying for in one way or another. As the old maxim goes: You only get what you pay for.
“Send it over here and under cut the US product buy enough that the consumer is going to buy their product instead of the made one here, union or nonunion.”
This entire country has been made poorer by the way that corporations have decided to run roughshod over their own customers (who are also their fellow citizens), and take advantage of the third world workers they’ve chosen to exploit in order to give top management yet another grossly exorbitant raise, and keep their stock holders happy at the expense of everyone below their lofty income bracket.
“An example is the garment industry. When I was a youngin just about every jerk water town here in Georgia had a garment factory of some sort in it.”
Yeah, I remember when I was kid how well made all those American-made garments were. How perfectly straight and well turned out the seams were, and how well they held up in my Mom’s old well-built American-made washing machine. Now, we get nothing but a lot of expensive crap that looks like complete trash after we wear it and wash it more than once in our Third World manufactured washing machines that aren’t built to last.
Due to the fact that I like good quality, and love my country, I still buy American and Union Made whenever I possibly can (even thought this is getting harder and harder to do). And each and every time I do, I clearly see that I’m getting what I paid that bit extra for. I also feel good in that uniquely patriotic way to know that one of my own fellow citizens, who lives decently and in good health, and who with dignity and pride is able take care of their family, actually made what I bought and can happily use with a clear conscience.
“Today your going to hard pressed to find one operating anywhere in the state.”
And that is a Crime. A crime of uncaring greed, and blatant neglect of our fellow citizens and their families. A crime to those who labor for next to nothing in the third world — all for the profits of a greedy few.
“Why? Because Taiwan, Korea, and Japan started shipping their cheaper product over here and selling them for less than the US manufactures could.”
And have you ever asked yourself why that was ever allowed to happen? It’s because thanks to corporate greed, America was allowed to be hijacked. Much like the terrorists hijacked our planes on 9/11. And just like in that attack, it is killing us, and nobody is demanding the answers that can protect our citizens and set things to rights.
Far easier for the Righties to talk about how f**king great this new global economy is, while they start their pre-emptive wars of aggression overseas, and send our citizens who can’t find jobs off to fight them (either in the military or as mercenaries) wearing armored vests and helmets made by wage slaves in China, and weaponry either made by others in the Third World, or produced by war profiteering corporations right here in our own country through no bid contracts, who coat them with the “depleted” uranium that is America’s toxic nuclear waste. And how ironic it is when they stand there Waving the Flag, and telling us that “only the GOP knows how protect us from Enemies and Terror” because they “Support the Troops”, and never fail to “God Bless America.”
It makes me sick right down to my soul.
“The consumer started buying the imported products and the US garment manufacturers where pretty much forced out of business.”
But only because the corporations (both US and foreign) were allowed to take over this country and crap all over it. And they did so just so they could make their profits increase exponentially every single year. That was more important than the fact they were putting so many Americans out of work and making them begin a desperate search for a way to make ends meet. It was also perfectly fine to make those all-important profits off the backs of the poverty stricken workers of Third World nations.
And our politicians let them do this, indeed they have encouraged it — mostly because they too, are heavily invested and therefore think nothing about whether they are squeezing the life out of America.
Bunch of criminals, the lot of them.
“So go ahead, demand your $30/hour pay.”
You’re damn right we will — because with the ever growing costs of living, and healthcare deductibles, and car payments, and college educations etc. etc., that’s what a decent life happens to cost these days. And if We the People are really smart, we’ll all Go Union, and demand a better life than the one they want us to have. And if they don’t like it, and once again try to get their goons to beat our heads in, we could make this country grind to a complete halt. And, you know what Ron? That’s the moment when we’d be able to take this nation back from the Greedy and Faithless Robber Barons once again, just like we did in the past.
These people are no different now than they ever were. They’ve always sought to rule over us, doing everything they could to sap our collective vitality and pride in order to make their fortunes. The only difference between now and then, is that now they’ve got an enormous propaganda machine working overtime to get people to vote voluntarily against their own best interests. Using words like “Un-American” and “Socialist” to describe the only real power anyone in this world has ever had against oppression: Solidarity.
“And when John Deere and Caterpillar either close down or ship your job to India to survive, I don’t want to here ya crying.”
And when America begins to look as poor and desperate as so many parts of India do, you, or your children and grandchildren are sure to rue the day they did. You’ll wish that company had maintained a sense of community and fellowship with their fellow citizens and workers so that America didn’t have to become a complete hellhole simply to further their selfish greed.
I wonder, did you even think about what you were saying as you wrote that, Ron? Honestly, you’re statement is just so much “Let them eat cake.” And we all know what happened after people started talking that way, don’t we?
The French Revolution. Mobs of people who lived from hand to mouth on a daily basis came (because they felt they had nothing left to lose), and dragged the arrogant wealthy who lacked all compassion for the plight of their fellow citizens from their well appointed nests of luxury, and brutally killed them for their callousness (as well as their own stupidity).
The righteously indignant citizens of France during the Revolution disproved the notion that you can’t squeeze blood from a stone. Because that citizenry had built up so much hatred for their oppressors, that they squeezed a sea of blood from that aristocracy whose hearts were made of stone, and anyone who was remotely associated with them. It became nothing but a madness of mass murder brought on by the rage of the populace against the cold hearted attitudes of the victims themselves.
I sincerely wouldn’t like to see such a horror repeated ever again, and yet I know it’s entirely possible — because that same level of callousness is being allowed to return in our modern world.
“Just remember you and your union are the ones to blame, not the company.”
Bullsh*t. You’ve really got it all ass backwards, Ron. And that’s a real shame, because I’ve always thought you were a conservative of the old school. The kind that truly cared about America.
“Outraged Said: I can work in a non union sweat shop for $6.50 per hour and no benefits and maybe the roof will cave in or if I am lucky maybe not!”
What kind of union lies are you swallowing? I aint heard of a roof falling in on any nonunion shop in the last 60 years or so.”
Ron, the mine whose roof just collapsed and killed those miners in Utah was a non-union mine. They were removing the pillars of coal that were holding up that whole mountain in order to squeeze every last penny out of it for that company. The worse thing about it, was that the company (and government officials appointed by the Bush administration, it turns out) knew that what they were asking those men to do so was extremely dangerous, but they just didn’t care.
We might think of it as just another terrible chapter in the big book of “Compassionate Conservatism” and their “Culture of Life.”
“While there are some employers that don’t pay a living wage or give benefits and have shoddy working conditions, they are in the minority. Most employers know that in order to attract and keep good employees they need to pay a decent wage and have some kind of benefit package and have a safe work environment. Good employees won’t stay unless they do.”
Without Unions there would never have been decent wages, or benefits, or safe working conditions AT ALL. For over twenty years now, the politicians and pundits of the Right have done their best to do away with the Unions. They’ve demonized and undermined them in every way they could in order to make people believe that most of the things you listed above, as well as job security, are luxuries that workers don’t deserve and shouldn’t expect.
Too bad there aren’t Republicans like T. Roosevelt any longer. There was a Republican who understood that wage slavery wasn’t what Americans fought and died for in our own Revolution. He understood that businesses had gained too much control over the lives and well being of our citizens, and that these businesses needed to be regulated so that our people weren’t forced to become so much raw meat for the grinder that ensures the extravagant profits and selfish comforts of the Upperclass.
Hell, even Eisenhower was a admirable Republican for attempting to warn the country about the dangers of the military industrial complex and war profiteering (even though nobody chose to heed that warning).
I know you’ll agree because we’ve talked about this before, but let me repeat: it’s silly for us to think that the Republican Party deserves to wear the label “Conservative” these days. Because they no longer have any respect for any of the ideas that previously garnered them an entirely valid, and well earned reputation among our people.
David, your reply to kctim was well stated, and I couldn’t agree more.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 13, 2007 12:29 AMDavid, companies have no power if they must bow down to the union at every turn. Either accept the unions demands, hope they will work with you or close their doors.
Unions have pushed themselves into a corner with their greed. They have caused prices to be too high and have earned the contempt people have for them.
What is really “dung” is how neither side of the issue wishes to give the other side a fair stake in the matter.
Corps will put company first if they can and unions will take advantage of the govt laws like they do now.
There IS a happy middle ground, people are just too greedy to see it.
kctim said: “David, companies have no power if they must bow down to the union at every turn.”
The unions don’t have total power over companies as you suggest, and never have. What you suggest ignores the reality that unions have a vested interest in the success of the companies their members work for.
kctim said: “Either accept the unions demands, hope they will work with you or close their doors.”
Please name companies which have been forced to close their doors as a result of union bargaining? Fact is, you can’t. American companies which have moved overseas or shut down entirely have done so for a host of reasons having to do with local economics to global competition, to the end of the consumer life of their product line, and while 2 or 3 of the most powerful unions in the past have contributed to companies loss of international competitive advantage, that was inevitable regardless of existence of unions. The steel industry was going to become China’s to dominate whether or not America’s unions existed or not. They have the raw iron deposits, the cheap labor, and now the capitalization to compete. Our unions had nothing to do with that shift of the steel industry from the U.S. to China. It was going to happen whether Steelworkers were unionized or not.
kctim said: “Unions have pushed themselves into a corner with their greed.”
And companies forced the creation of unions with their greed. Our history is replete with greed on both sides. But, one cannot ignore that American corporations are seeing record levels of profits while American labor wages have stagnated for decades. Those macroeconomic statistics argue that it has been the corporations and their investors with the far more successful level of greed.
kctim said: “They have caused prices to be too high and have earned the contempt people have for them.”
That is pure hogwash, kctim. The rise of emerging markets like India and China and Japan as competitors with lower competitive pricing is what you should be looking at, not unions. Unions have fought to prevent erosion of middle class working wages and benefits, nothing more, against a backdrop of ever more competitively priced goods from overseas. You really should read “The World Is Flat” by Friedman. Unions are not the cause of rising prices. The reality is globalization of corporate structures and emerging markets have quite the opposite effect, a continuous downward pressure on American wages and benefits. Unions fought those pressures, and the fact that America still has unions and Auto manufacturers, some steel industry, and trucking stands as a testament to the success of collective bargaining between unions and companies, not failure.
Need a reason to support Unions? Here’s a good one:
Income inequality worst since 1920s, according to IRS data.
A good example of the kind of Bushite Logic the vast majority of Americans can’t swallow any longer:
Bush: Keeping jobs in US costs US jobs
Adrienne
That’s right blame all the problems on the evil corporations. After all the all good unions have never exploited their membership any at all.
If union employees are so efficient then why is it that everyone (but me) considers Japanese cars better than US cars? They aint made of any better material that ours. In fact it seems that the metal is thinner and easier to dent than US cars. Could it be because the union employees don’t care about the quality of the product they’re building because they know they can’t loose their jobs for shoddy workmanship? But this aint causing the lose in market share is it? It’s the ‘evil’ corporation and it’s greed in trying to survive in a global economy that y’all tout as being so great.
So go ahead blame the ‘evil’ corporations for the way things are. And they do have their share of blame. But the ‘all good’ unions have plenty of blame to take also.
I’m like you. I buy American made products as much as possible. But I don’t care if it’s union or nonunion made. I buy the best quality possible. (And believe it or not, there are a whole heap of very good nonunion products out there. Made in shops where the employees are well paid, have decent benefits, and in some cases a safer working environment.)
This is the biggest reason we don’t shop at Wally World. They for the most part have cheap foreign products that don’t last near as long as most the American made products that we pay a little more for. Old Sam Walton must be rolling over in his grave.
Although I do have a bit of a problem paying $10 to $15 more for my grandson’s jeans. That boy is like his Great granddaddy’s son. He can tear up a $20 pair of jeans just as fast as he can a $10 pair.
Adrienne,
Your post #236032 is right on the money!!!!!!!!!
I don’t see how anyone could disagree with any one of your statements in that post, unless they where being paid to put a negative spin on it!!!!!!!
These corporate weasels have to realize that we are their employees and their customers!!!!!
My union made tools and equipment have lasted me 35 years of hard use!!!!!!!
The cheap china and India made lead infested Wal-Mart crap that I have purchased much of it is taking up space in a local landfill!!!!!
And for the rest of you and your Anti-Union crap that you spew!!!!!
I don’t feel that the American worker must lower themselves to the level of the workers in a third world country to compete!!!!!!!!!!!!! We never have before why would we now unless we where forced to???????????? We have always been world leaders in technology, innovation and the can do attitude!!!!!
Our corporate leaders have failed this nation not the American people!!!!!!!
You traitors are living in a bubble you are out of touch and isolated!!!!!
Break out of your bubble, go down to the shop floor and meet your employees/customers!!!!!! They have some real hands on experience to share with you!!!!!!!
Posted by: Outraged at October 15, 2007 09:43 AMOutraged, much of the failure can also be traced to dramatically dropping education standards in America. The education of emerging market nation’s is leaping forward while ours is diminishing. Combine that with their ability to do the same job for significantly lower wages and our radical diminishing dollar value fueling American consumers buying cheaper imports, and you have the makings for a race to the third world wage level.
Greenspan (Republican) actually argues that America needs to throw her borders wide open to all low wage workers who want to immigrate here as solution to keeping Corporations here in America instead of moving overseas and taking their jobs with them. Good old Republican trickle down economic theory, pure and simple.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2007 09:22 PMOutraged said: My union made tools and equipment have lasted me 35 years of hard use!!!!!!!
If you have any quality hand tools (Craftsman, Snap-on, Matco, K&N, etc.) they were made by Danaher Corp over in Springdale AR. Danaher has never been a union shop.
My brother-in-law has worked there for close to 22 years now. He told me the pay and benefits are very good for the area, and working conditions are safe.
I use Craftsman tools on the farm that my granddaddy and daddy used on their farms. And if I don’t manage to loose them I plan to pass them on to my son.
But then nonunion products aint worth a crap are they?
But then nonunion products aint worth a crap are they?
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 17, 2007 12:11 AM
The cheap china and India made lead infested Wal-Mart crap that I have purchased much of it is taking up space in a local landfill!!!!!
This is what I stated in my post!!!! I don’t know where you got that statement!!!!!
Some of the US made products are the best quality products in the world!!!!!
Why should we have to work in a sweat shop and live in a slum to compete with workers in a third world country???????????????
How many nonunion employees do you know that are living in slums? Burger flippers maybe? Even they get paid better than minimum wage. Convenient store clerks? Everyone I’ve talked to gets paid better than minimum wage. Wal-Mart employees? Maybe, but some of them sure can afford some nice cars. While none of the above are living in mansions they can afford better than slums. So just which nonunion employees are living in slums? Or maybe your one of them that thinks that anything under 4,000 sq ft is slums. In that case I live in a slum (1510 sq ft). And I own 2 businesses.
The only folks I see living in slums are the lazy shiftless folks that either won’t work or can’t hold a job because of poor work habits. And them folks don’t deserve better.
Your right though, American made products are the best quality products in the world. That’s why we buy American products as much as possible.
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 17, 2007 01:13 PMHello Ron Brown!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for asking me those questions, answering them for me and then thinking for me also!!!!!
It does save me a lot of time!!!!!!
All I have left to say is good luck with your two businesses and that big house you live in sounds real nice!!!!!!!!
Take Care!!!!!
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
