The Democratic Candidates

1163164166168169194

Comments

  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,583
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    Just a question,  I am trying to get more information on some the candidates and I have a friend who is a big fan of Andrew Yang.  Seems very smart but not getting alot of traction.  just trying to understand why?
    UBI is not palatable and that's his "differentiator" from what I can tell. 
    who do you think its not palatable to?   I understand that the media plays up the UBI alot but i do look at reason why he brings up the UBI and i tend to agree with it.
    Considering the split in the party on M4A, I think it's reasonable to assume that rank and file Democrats aren't going to support 1k monthly to every American just for waking up in the morning.  I don't want to pay the taxes to support that, to say nothing about the inflationary concerns. 
    saw this article in another tread here.



    It's an interesting idea but how to pay for it is huge. If there were a way to come up with an "automation tax" (for example employers that replace employees with AI developed from govt resources) you MIGHT be able to convince the electorate.


    But right now, the poll you cited gets trump 4 mo years:

    "46% say they would be willing to pay higher personal taxes to fund the program and 54% say they would not be."


    And if we dig deeper, those who oppose UBI (older ppl) are more likely to vote than those who support the idea.
    A more recent poll which includes the 1000 ubi moves the needle down.  

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/435278-poll-most-voters-oppose-a-universal-basic-income-programs?amp


    That looks like 57% oppose. My best guess is it would be at least 60/40 against during a general election when we would have trump and the GOP screaming "See we told you they are Socialists!"

    The progressive wing of the Dem party is having a difficult time understanding how US politics works.

     Leftist policies that change the fabric of America  need at least a vocal 60% of everyone to get going. 

    Bernie and Liz have support of maybe 35% of dems and a lower % of independents.  That is nowhere close to the support needed to make it happen.

    Its shocking that Bernie and Liz are mostly to blame for this lack of understanding 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,720
    UBI is too radical for america. think of the ideals that country holds so dear. given it a generation or two and that may change, depending on how politics goes. but right now, not a chance. 
    12/29/19
  • fifefife Posts: 3,305
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    Just a question,  I am trying to get more information on some the candidates and I have a friend who is a big fan of Andrew Yang.  Seems very smart but not getting alot of traction.  just trying to understand why?
    UBI is not palatable and that's his "differentiator" from what I can tell. 
    who do you think its not palatable to?   I understand that the media plays up the UBI alot but i do look at reason why he brings up the UBI and i tend to agree with it.
    Considering the split in the party on M4A, I think it's reasonable to assume that rank and file Democrats aren't going to support 1k monthly to every American just for waking up in the morning.  I don't want to pay the taxes to support that, to say nothing about the inflationary concerns. 
    saw this article in another tread here.



    It's an interesting idea but how to pay for it is huge. If there were a way to come up with an "automation tax" (for example employers that replace employees with AI developed from govt resources) you MIGHT be able to convince the electorate.


    But right now, the poll you cited gets trump 4 mo years:

    "46% say they would be willing to pay higher personal taxes to fund the program and 54% say they would not be."


    And if we dig deeper, those who oppose UBI (older ppl) are more likely to vote than those who support the idea.
    my question is this.  if you do believe that AI and automation is going to cause a major shift in employment with less people working, how to you solve this problem?  cause if you don't you may end up with a trump also.  

    I would be interested to see how the idea of UBI played out in the battle states as compared to national. 
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,312
    UBI was tried on a very limited scale in Ontario and Finland...both jurisdictions ended the program early.  They were not seeing the results they had hoped for.  I in no way support a UBI.  And the only way I'd get behind a UBI is if it replaced all the other social programs that people depend on...welfare, unemployment insurance, pension...etc.  I could get behind one or the other but not all because all those other departments will need to be eliminated in order to even attempt such a move.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,583
    fife said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    Just a question,  I am trying to get more information on some the candidates and I have a friend who is a big fan of Andrew Yang.  Seems very smart but not getting alot of traction.  just trying to understand why?
    UBI is not palatable and that's his "differentiator" from what I can tell. 
    who do you think its not palatable to?   I understand that the media plays up the UBI alot but i do look at reason why he brings up the UBI and i tend to agree with it.
    Considering the split in the party on M4A, I think it's reasonable to assume that rank and file Democrats aren't going to support 1k monthly to every American just for waking up in the morning.  I don't want to pay the taxes to support that, to say nothing about the inflationary concerns. 
    saw this article in another tread here.



    It's an interesting idea but how to pay for it is huge. If there were a way to come up with an "automation tax" (for example employers that replace employees with AI developed from govt resources) you MIGHT be able to convince the electorate.


    But right now, the poll you cited gets trump 4 mo years:

    "46% say they would be willing to pay higher personal taxes to fund the program and 54% say they would not be."


    And if we dig deeper, those who oppose UBI (older ppl) are more likely to vote than those who support the idea.
    my question is this.  if you do believe that AI and automation is going to cause a major shift in employment with less people working, how to you solve this problem?  cause if you don't you may end up with a trump also.  

    I would be interested to see how the idea of UBI played out in the battle states as compared to national. 

    I think you are onto something- that UBI might be a reasonable solution to automation- but the US is one of the more conservative nations around.

    AI was a bigger problem than immigrants stealing jobs IMO and it was barely discussed the last election.

    We are now 5 years into the Trump revolution and I think he has cemented opinion for many in swing states blaming immigrants for this employment issue.


  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,501
    UBI was tried on a very limited scale in Ontario and Finland...both jurisdictions ended the program early.  They were not seeing the results they had hoped for.  I in no way support a UBI.  And the only way I'd get behind a UBI is if it replaced all the other social programs that people depend on...welfare, unemployment insurance, pension...etc.  I could get behind one or the other but not all because all those other departments will need to be eliminated in order to even attempt such a move.
    Ontario didn't stop it because they were not seeing results - the change in government stopped it. They did not run it long enough to get valid data. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,312
    UBI was tried on a very limited scale in Ontario and Finland...both jurisdictions ended the program early.  They were not seeing the results they had hoped for.  I in no way support a UBI.  And the only way I'd get behind a UBI is if it replaced all the other social programs that people depend on...welfare, unemployment insurance, pension...etc.  I could get behind one or the other but not all because all those other departments will need to be eliminated in order to even attempt such a move.
    Ontario didn't stop it because they were not seeing results - the change in government stopped it. They did not run it long enough to get valid data. 
    I live in the region that has the highest child poverty rate in Ontario ... and no one from here her got included... It was a BS program, to begin with.  The results were never going to be there.  Some people got UBI who owned business.s...what results were they expecting?  If you are running a UBI program, may I suggest fist helping those most in need...not people already employed or those who own a business?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,501
    UBI was tried on a very limited scale in Ontario and Finland...both jurisdictions ended the program early.  They were not seeing the results they had hoped for.  I in no way support a UBI.  And the only way I'd get behind a UBI is if it replaced all the other social programs that people depend on...welfare, unemployment insurance, pension...etc.  I could get behind one or the other but not all because all those other departments will need to be eliminated in order to even attempt such a move.
    Ontario didn't stop it because they were not seeing results - the change in government stopped it. They did not run it long enough to get valid data. 
    I live in the region that has the highest child poverty rate in Ontario ... and no one from here her got included... It was a BS program, to begin with.  The results were never going to be there.  Some people got UBI who owned business.s...what results were they expecting?  If you are running a UBI program, may I suggest fist helping those most in need...not people already employed or those who own a business?

    It was a pilot project than ran in three locations. If you don't live in one of those three locations, then not surprising that no one from your area got included. If you do, then again, it was a pilot project, never meant to include everyone.

    "Some people got UBI who owned businesses" - the eligibility criteria included those who were employed but earned income below the defined basic income level. Many people who own small businesses don't earn enough to survive on, at least initially, but the goal was to help people get there. People were encouraged to go back to school or work while in the program, since that only benefits them and society as a whole. Employment income would be clawed back at 50%, so there was still incentive to work. 

    "Help people most in need" - inclusion criteria were different than basic social assistance, since this is a different program. 

    The program was cancelled by the new Ford government after only one year of a three year project, and thus no usable data was achieved. You have no idea whether "the results were never going to be there"; that's just your opinion of it, based on no data. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    For the record,  Yang's proposal is not about helping people in need. Every citizen would receive the amount regardless of income.  It's intentionally creating a welfare state.  No thanks.  
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 7,944
    fife said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    mrussel1 said:
    fife said:
    Just a question,  I am trying to get more information on some the candidates and I have a friend who is a big fan of Andrew Yang.  Seems very smart but not getting alot of traction.  just trying to understand why?
    UBI is not palatable and that's his "differentiator" from what I can tell. 
    who do you think its not palatable to?   I understand that the media plays up the UBI alot but i do look at reason why he brings up the UBI and i tend to agree with it.
    Considering the split in the party on M4A, I think it's reasonable to assume that rank and file Democrats aren't going to support 1k monthly to every American just for waking up in the morning.  I don't want to pay the taxes to support that, to say nothing about the inflationary concerns. 
    saw this article in another tread here.



    It's an interesting idea but how to pay for it is huge. If there were a way to come up with an "automation tax" (for example employers that replace employees with AI developed from govt resources) you MIGHT be able to convince the electorate.


    But right now, the poll you cited gets trump 4 mo years:

    "46% say they would be willing to pay higher personal taxes to fund the program and 54% say they would not be."


    And if we dig deeper, those who oppose UBI (older ppl) are more likely to vote than those who support the idea.
    my question is this.  if you do believe that AI and automation is going to cause a major shift in employment with less people working, how to you solve this problem?  cause if you don't you may end up with a trump also.  

    I would be interested to see how the idea of UBI played out in the battle states as compared to national. 

    I think you are onto something- that UBI might be a reasonable solution to automation- but the US is one of the more conservative nations around.

    AI was a bigger problem than immigrants stealing jobs IMO and it was barely discussed the last election.

    We are now 5 years into the Trump revolution and I think he has cemented opinion for many in swing states blaming immigrants for this employment issue.


    I suspect on the unskilled or manual labour side, AI will actually affect more locals than immigrants. Immigrants come with a hell of a work ethic and will often do the same work for less, meaning the upside potential of automating predominantly immigrant-occupied jobs might not be as great as their local counterparts. I'm guessing if this turns out to be true, it will be misrepresented as "another case of immigrants taking our jobs" or something like that.

    One thing that's preventing automation of manual labourers for now is probably the steep cost of robotics automations compared to software automations, and also the fact that if you're to replace an entire role with automatons, that's typically a decent number of tasks all of which would have to be automated (or distributed to remaining employees) at a cost. I think these two realities might buy us a few years more during which we can continue to ignore the warning signs of impending economic havoc (alongside the impending climate catastrophe and nuclear conflict).


    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,827
    edited August 22

    Bernie Sanders announces plan to double union membership if elected



    Bernie Sanders has released plans to double union membership in the US during his first term in office as he campaigns to secure the Democratic presidential candidacy.

    Sanders’ plan is an expansion of the Workplace Democracy Act, previously championed by the Vermont senator, and would also restore workers’ rights to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/21/bernie-sanders-union-membership-plan

    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    edited August 22
    Party like it's 1890 again.  
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,583
    mrussel1 said:
    Party like it's 1890 again.  

    The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

    Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

    I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

    ...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

    ...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,312
    mrussel1 said:
    For the record,  Yang's proposal is not about helping people in need. Every citizen would receive the amount regardless of income.  It's intentionally creating a welfare state.  No thanks.  
    Agreed.  It will never happen. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 19,720
    just create a third fucking party already, bernie. that ain't the democratic platform. 
    12/29/19
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,312
    Unions are like the government...they both leech off the productivity of others.  Spent 25 years in a union...never again.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    mrussel1 said:
    Party like it's 1890 again.  

    The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

    Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

    I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

    ...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

    ...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)
    A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    Unions are like the government...they both leech off the productivity of others.  Spent 25 years in a union...never again.
    When there were no labor laws, and there were company 'towns' and stores, unions were really important in leveling the playing field.  But I feel like, by and large, they've outlived their usefulness.  Factory unions is one place where there's still use, but now manufacturers are building plants where there are no unions, like TN, SC, etc.  
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,312
    mrussel1 said:
    Unions are like the government...they both leech off the productivity of others.  Spent 25 years in a union...never again.
    When there were no labor laws, and there were company 'towns' and stores, unions were really important in leveling the playing field.  But I feel like, by and large, they've outlived their usefulness.  Factory unions is one place where there's still use, but now manufacturers are building plants where there are no unions, like TN, SC, etc.  
    For sure.  No doubt they played a roll in shaping labour laws throughout Canada and the US.  Manufacturing and Union membership have been on the decline in Ontario ever since we foolishly signed onto free trade.  Unions fought tooth and nail against free trade...now the Jerry Dias, UNIFOR president endorses free trade even though his members will lose more jobs because of agreement.  No problem so much with free trade...I absolutely oppose Mexico being part of the agreement...
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,583
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Party like it's 1890 again.  

    The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

    Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

    I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

    ...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

    ...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)
    A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  



    Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

    I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Party like it's 1890 again.  

    The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

    Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

    I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

    ...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

    ...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)
    A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  



    Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

    I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."
    Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 16,028
    Hickenlooper running for Senate. Gets to transfer cash from one campaign to the other.  He isnt a lock but they voted him in twice didnt they for governor? And hes seen the economic benefits of legal pot too.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • KatKat There's a lot to be said for nowhere.Posts: 3,808
    Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

    "Well, as far as I know, music makes people happy. I know it makes me happy." -- Fats Domino
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,772
    Kat said:
    Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

    Not really - kinda would take a miracle, most of them are solid Red states. Maine, Arizona, and Colorado have a decent chance, but I think Dems need to net +7 to take it. That's without getting into the weeds of Dems defending their own without taking a hit.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,827
    mrussel1 said:
    Unions are like the government...they both leech off the productivity of others.  Spent 25 years in a union...never again.
    When there were no labor laws, and there were company 'towns' and stores, unions were really important in leveling the playing field.  But I feel like, by and large, they've outlived their usefulness.  Factory unions is one place where there's still use, but now manufacturers are building plants where there are no unions, like TN, SC, etc.  
    An american speaking about unions being a thing of the past, while people have to work three jobs to make ends meet. 

    Icky.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 16,827
    edited August 22

    Bernie Sanders’s ‘Green New Deal’: A $16 Trillion Climate Plan





    WASHINGTON — Senator Bernie Sanders on Thursday released a $16.3 trillion blueprint to fight climate change, the latest and most expensive proposal from the field of Democratic presidential candidates aimed at reining in planet-warming greenhouse gases.

    Mr. Sanders unveiled his proposal one day after Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, who made climate change the central focus of his campaign, announced he was dropping out of the 2020 race. Mr. Inslee’s absence could create an opening for another presidential aspirant to seize the mantle of “climate candidate.”


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html

    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    mrussel1 said:
    Unions are like the government...they both leech off the productivity of others.  Spent 25 years in a union...never again.
    When there were no labor laws, and there were company 'towns' and stores, unions were really important in leveling the playing field.  But I feel like, by and large, they've outlived their usefulness.  Factory unions is one place where there's still use, but now manufacturers are building plants where there are no unions, like TN, SC, etc.  
    An american speaking about unions being a thing of the past, while people have to work three jobs to make ends meet. 

    Icky.
    A Swede who knows nothing about America acting like he does, day after.  Ignorant.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 14,350
    Kat said:
    Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

    Not really - kinda would take a miracle, most of them are solid Red states. Maine, Arizona, and Colorado have a decent chance, but I think Dems need to net +7 to take it. That's without getting into the weeds of Dems defending their own without taking a hit.
    Agree +7 is a lot.  Agree on the three states, but could lose Alabama as well.  I think Iowa could be in play with Joni Ernst on defense.  Maybe Tennessee.  NC is a toss up.  If all of those states go our way, it can happen.  I think +4 is likely.  That's what I would bet.  
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 11,772
    edited August 22
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat said:
    Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

    Not really - kinda would take a miracle, most of them are solid Red states. Maine, Arizona, and Colorado have a decent chance, but I think Dems need to net +7 to take it. That's without getting into the weeds of Dems defending their own without taking a hit.
    Agree +7 is a lot.  Agree on the three states, but could lose Alabama as well.  I think Iowa could be in play with Joni Ernst on defense.  Maybe Tennessee.  NC is a toss up.  If all of those states go our way, it can happen.  I think +4 is likely.  That's what I would bet.  
    Right. Might, maybe, though not probable, could pick up Georgia as well. 

    Certain states are going to continue to get bluer and redder - especially on the coasts & major metro areas (bluer) and the rust belt and midwest (redder). But I see Georgia, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and possibly Texas (as metro areas keep increasing in size) going full blue in the next decade. Florida  I'd like to bet on, but that's just a fucking weird state.

    Re: unions - if there were better regulations and laws in place then, theoretically, there wouldn't be a need for unions. And the unions of the past certainly aren't needed in the present. But I'll say I have come around on unions, because theories and ideals never match reality. So I believe they're needed, especially in certain industries -  to me they're specifically needed in teachers and nurses going forward as a requirement.

    If we're going to live in a world where the message of advanced education isn't a requirement, and we move continuously into a service-based economy, then they're absolutely needed. If minimum wage is kept stagnant then the power of unions are needed as the value of a dollar doesn't go up. The worker needs some leverage in that situation.
    Post edited by Jearlpam0925 on
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 1,583
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Party like it's 1890 again.  

    The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

    Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

    I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

    ...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

    ...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)
    A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  



    Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

    I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."
    Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

    Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

    But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

    I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.
This discussion has been closed.