I think Unions have done brilliant things for workers in the past. They were absolutely necessary. I, however, wonder though if they have outlasted their usefulness. On the other hand, if they disappeared today, would we revert back to a 'sweat shop' style work force? I don't know. What I do know, where I work, the Union somewhat promotes an anti-competitiveness atmosphere and benefits poor workers. They have done harm to the idea of merit and allow some workers to take advantage of the system. I don't know what the answer is to this one.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think Unions have done brilliant things for workers in the past. They were absolutely necessary. I, however, wonder though if they have outlasted their usefulness. On the other hand, if they disappeared today, would we revert back to a 'sweat shop' style work force? I don't know. What I do know, where I work, the Union somewhat promotes an anti-competitiveness atmosphere and benefits poor workers. They have done harm to the idea of merit and allow some workers to take advantage of the system. I don't know what the answer is to this one.
I think that due to the improved communications, transportation and the prevalence of lawyers, we would not revert back to a sweat shop style workforce. Conditions have improved.
As I said before, they may have their place in developing countries, but not here.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Its all relative tho. If you believe in democracy and freedom than you should believe that it should apply to the workforce. Granted, a fuckup is a little more important at the ceo's level but if you recognize labor's worth...without the people running the mill, the workers actually doing the work, THERE IS NO MILL to run. That is what unions were created to protect.
I dont' know much about the mob ties, but its seems fairly obvious that unions have had to give kickbacks to the mob (Jimma Hoffa probably refused).
I do agree that freedom should apply to a work force, I just don't think that someone who has a pretty unskilled job should get paid more just because they are alligned with skilled people that can hold a company hostage if they don't get their way.
As far as some worker working harder than the CEO it also depends on how valuable your skills are. If you work hard doing a job that requires very little skill and that even a trained monkey could do, I don't think you deserve to be paid a lot, even if you have to work really hard (you don't deserve nothing but at the same time I don't think you deserve an inflated salary because of union membership). At the same time if you are a CEO with a very specialized skill set that not a lot of people have, then you deserve to be paid a lot since someone with your skills would be rarer and harder to hire. Besides I think people don’t realize how much high level executives work. A while back the CBC did a show where they had low level people from a company switch places with Presidents and CEO’s. The one I remember was a waitress from Boston Pizza switching places with the CEO. He had a difficult time getting used to being a waiter, but she was run ragged since for the 3 days she had the CEO job pretty much any time she wasn’t asleep she was on the job.
As far as the mob goes, it is a lot more than just mob kickbacks. In the past mafia guys have infiltrated unions and made it so that their union gets the sweet contract with little or no competition, then does shoddy work and usually skims off the top for themselves. On top of that the mob in the past has had control of union bank accounts (Union Pension Fund’s run by the mob built a bunch of the old school casinos in Vegas).
I think that due to the improved communications, transportation and the prevalence of lawyers, we would not revert back to a sweat shop style workforce. Conditions have improved.
As I said before, they may have their place in developing countries, but not here.
corporations only give things if they are made to give them. Either by government (as it is it Britain for example) or by unions.
You and I live in two very different Americas
I work in an in industry where they would work us until we die unless someone interceeded.
just curious, have you ever been the recipient of union benefits?
There are plusses and minuses to both systems. Unions work really well for specialized industries and low wage less skilled workers by and large. It's not the be all end all. In some cases they deliver very well for the workers and in other cases they hold them back.
They work really crappy for high performing corporate employees for instance. If you have highly marketable skills, unions are generally bad news, because you can pit companies against each other. If you're in a union you get stuck with the same contract as everyone else in the union and because you're a group they just can't pay you more or give you more incentives because it prices them out of the market especially if they had to give it to everyone. Sales people, account executives etc... they do this almost daily. It's just like you as a consumer. You can spend your dollars on anything, but you want to buy the best in your price range. If you can find one piece to improve your safety, bottomline, compliance etc instead of hiring an entire group who may have good performers and bad performers you can improve your entire company.
Market driven jobs don't work for all people and union jobs don't work for all people. I tend to believe we need some of both in a healthy economy just like we need rules and regulations to make corporations do right we need to have positions available where individuals are rewarded for exceptional work. Those types of individuals aren't going to thrive in a union environment, they simply aren't going to work as hard because there isn't any incentive.
Wages at top levels often have a lot to do with risk and how much people are willing to take. That's why you can't pay an uneducated guy that pushes a broom 20 bucks an hour. It's irresponsible because globally people who aren't doing as well can and will do that job for a hell of a lot less money because there relatively is nothing to it. You have to keep the quality high and the wages/benifits competitive and then the market has to be willing to recognise quality as a reason to buy. Currently we don't give a crap largely about quality just price, that's why we have so many jobs being shipped overseas, that and our prohibitive tax code.
Big problems in these systems are that people are unwilling to take risks. Tarriffs, Price Supports, standing pat with education... it all hurts someone somewhere.
West Africa could produce cotton a lot cheaper than the US but we have Price Supports and Tarriffs. Cuba could eat into US tobacco and sugar big time but we have price supports, tarrifs, embargos...etc.
The US has a terrible trade deficit. We do need more Quality manufacturing back here and that means unions, but we've also got to be sensible about those contracts and make sure we stay competitive globally.
These systems can work very well with open dialog and truthful good business practices. Corporations and Unions both need checks and balances to keep the system healthy for all.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Its all relative tho. If you believe in democracy and freedom than you should believe that it should apply to the workforce. Granted, a fuckup is a little more important at the ceo's level but if you recognize labor's worth...without the people running the mill, the workers actually doing the work, THERE IS NO MILL to run. That is what unions were created to protect.
But the labor of the mill is a combination of all of the laborers work. The CEO is in a position by himself. One laborer isnt going to be productive enough to keep a mill or factory a float. So, who is more valueable to the company? A laborer who is one of hunderds, possibly thousands, or the CEO who is one of one and has over sight over the whole operation? I do agree that CEOs often times make more than they should, but there is certainly a different skillset involved when comparing a CEO to a laborer. The CEO is going to be more difficult to replace than a laborer in almost every situation, which is why the CEO should make quite a bit more than a laborer.
That was the main reason that I went into consulting. I couldn't handle being salaried and not getting paid for every hour I worked. Consulting is actually more stress than mill engineering because the workload is insane but it is infintely more challenging and infinitely more rewarding.
Are you still working at pulp mills? Do you need a good E&I consultant? I'm always looking for more work for our company - haha.
The pulp mill jobs were only Co-Op jobs while I was in university. I decided I did not want to go into that type of field when I graduated since I did not want to be stuck in a small town for the rest of my life.
Your signature would be more accurate if it was something to the effect of "Work Union, Lose Job to 3rd World Country"
wrong, as usual.
to be competitive with third world nations one of two things would have to happen
1.we would have to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws. we cant compete at 7.00 per hour with half our workforce in elementary schools.
2. our government would have to punish companies for taking their wares elsewhere (like in England). OOps, the corporations control our government, so..not going to happen.
I take it you support these things.
bottom line:
corporations aren't interested in a good product or enriching the economy in which they live.
they don't care where a product is made, who makes it, whether it's a quality product or what it's made of.
they only care about one thing, making a product as cheaply as possible and selling it for as much as they can.
"that's capitalism", I'm sure you'd say. I call it slavery.
But the labor of the mill is a combination of all of the laborers work. The CEO is in a position by himself. One laborer isnt going to be productive enough to keep a mill or factory a float. So, who is more valueable to the company? A laborer who is one of hunderds, possibly thousands, or the CEO who is one of one and has over sight over the whole operation? I do agree that CEOs often times make more than they should, but there is certainly a different skillset involved when comparing a CEO to a laborer. The CEO is going to be more difficult to replace than a laborer in almost every situation, which is why the CEO should make quite a bit more than a laborer.
that's why we have unions, to even things out. If labor can stand up as a group they become more important to the company than the ceo. If they stop work the CEO has no company to run. I would say labor is more valuable to the company, thanks to unions.
that's why we have unions, to even things out. If labor can stand up as a group they become more important to the company than the ceo. If they stop work the CEO has no company to run. I would say labor is more valuable to the company, thanks to unions.
Yes, labor as a group can be more important. Individual laborers are not. Unions have, and still do, provide a lot of good for workers rights, I dont argue that for a minute. Some unions do at times take it a bit far IMO, but overall I think they are good. But that still doesnt mean that a CEO isnt justified making much more than the workers. I do agree that some CEOs make well more than they are worth. But when you consider that there is only one CEO, and far fewer managers than laborers, then I think it certainly justifies a difference in pay between the 2 sides. Why should someone pushing a broom make $20 an hour? That is a job that many people can do, and would be willing to do for a lot less. Its not justified in paying that person that type of money.
There was an interesting item in the Global National News in Canada tonite. The Canadian federal budget came down and there was a bunch of money directed to the Canadian manufacturing industry, which is not doing as good as it did in the past because of the high Canadian dollar and lower profits by North American auto companies. At the end of the news they had piece about a family where both parents worked for General Motors and made a combined salary of $140,000 per year. They were worried that they were likely going to be laid off in the near future and they were upset that the government wasn't doing enough to help their industry with things like either propping it up or retraining people. I couldn't help but ask the TV what their union was doing to help retrain them, or even what they a family making $140,000 was doing to make sure they wouldn't have to struggle during hard times in the future.
This seems like a big issue as all of the candidates talk about unions, some support them, some don't.
I just left the labor movement as a Union Organizer, to get more active in local/community activism...
As the labor movement currently stands, the pros and cons are as follows:
Pros:
* A grievance procedure
* A legally binding contract that the employees and the employer have agreed upon.
* Better benefits and wages.
* A sense of solidarity with your co-workers (if you work for it).
Cons:
* Unions tend to put their hired hierarchy before the dues paying members, which can lead to back door deals, and the members losing control over THEIR union's future.
* Unions tend to be leaning towards a corporate structure which will end up depleting the labor movement, rather than strengthen it.
Myths:
* Outsourcing is the fault of Unions. NO! You can only blame the corporation who did the outsourcing for their crime! They make record profits, and move overseas to make MORE!
* Union members are lazy! NO! The grievance procedure is set to give balance to employees and employers. If a member is in the wrong, stewards and representatives are trained to tell them when they are wrong, and that they will be wasting members' dues.
* You must pay fees! Depends on the state... In Illinois, there is fair share... Which means that if you don't want to be represented by the union, you must still pay a "fair share" since you are reaping the benefits of having that union.
* Unions promote time spent vs. hard work! Depends on how YOU negotiate YOUR contract! If it comes time for negotiations, and a majority of you feel that seniority should only stand for issues such as vacation time, but promotions, etc should be merit based, THEN NEGOTIATE IT!
Wow, this board seems to be populated by people who can't do for themselves.
Labor is simply a comodity. It's value is simply whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. If you need a union to get you ahead, maybe you need to figure out why.
Here's an interesting little factiod regarding unions and the steel industry:
The facts are revealing of the role unions have played in the steel industry. Almost every U.S. mill in bankruptcy now is organized by the United Steelworkers union. No non-union steel companies have failed in the United States. Do the math. Over the years, unions made impossible wage and benefit demands on steel management, which capitulated under the rationale that the government would bail them out from their hollow promises.
Even if they're profiting, they're not exploiting the humans. They're helping. No problem in profiting from good.
That is until union leaders go softy on the contract negotiations so that they don't lose money on a strike. Or when they neglect the lower wage earners because they aren't paying the same dues as the higher wage earners. Or when member dues are spent on union election campaigns and smear projects as opposing union leaders square off for control.
And that's just the stuff that's actually allowed by law. That doesn't include the kick-backs from corporations for silent cooperation.
When you consider that most unions have a promotion/raise system based on seniority alone, the people who get screwed are the hard-working dependable employees who end up making the same wages and receiving the same raises as people who just do the bare minimum to keep from getting fired.
Wow, this board seems to be populated by people who can't do for themselves.
Labor is simply a comodity. It's value is simply whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. If you need a union to get you ahead, maybe you need to figure out why.
Here's an interesting little factiod regarding unions and the steel industry:
for the whole article: http://www.freetrade.org/node/239
I don't like unions because they have the bad habit to get between me and my commute, but you have got to be kidding me :
1 - Correlation IS NOT causation. 3 out of 4 corporations with unions here have a president named gerald ==> therefore unions use name discrimination. Do the math.
2 - Labor is not a comodity. Unless you consider that the human being is a comodity. Philosphy and moral values evolve through time, what was true 2000 years ago is not true in todays society. Today a work defines who you are and what is your place in society. It is so much more than a simple comodity it's a reason of life for bilions of people.
3 - If labor is a comodity and the number of people available keep rising then,according to the geniuses who work on economy, the price of that comodity will go down. Until where? Is that moral? Is it possible? Don't you think it creates unstability? How many bloodsheds (wars and revolutions) were started because of poverty and empty stomachs? Or, less melodramatic, is a successful society possible where poverty and quality of life goes down instead of up?
Good when they started out, lost their purpose and are now horribly bad.
A good example of this is the Auto Workers Union.
The Auto unions are a bit nuts. I mean it is pretty crazy to ask for more money when the company you work for is losing money like crazy (and then threaten to strike if you don't get it). Do people not understand that no money at all is also an option?
I worked for a company that eventually had a similar situation. It was another pulp mill that ended up shutting down becuase it wasn't making money and had a ton of debt. Eventually I think some dude offered to buy it, but only on the condition that the union took a pay cut (in exchange for getting their jobs back). In exchange for the pay cut they would get profit sharing and a promise to return to their full wages if the place became profitable again. Yet the union turned down the offer since apparently they would rather have no paycheck then a lower paycheck (and this was in a town where there wasn't a lot of employment options). I think eventually union management got canned by the members (since with everyone out of work the only ones making any money were the union people).
Comments
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think that due to the improved communications, transportation and the prevalence of lawyers, we would not revert back to a sweat shop style workforce. Conditions have improved.
As I said before, they may have their place in developing countries, but not here.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I do agree that freedom should apply to a work force, I just don't think that someone who has a pretty unskilled job should get paid more just because they are alligned with skilled people that can hold a company hostage if they don't get their way.
As far as some worker working harder than the CEO it also depends on how valuable your skills are. If you work hard doing a job that requires very little skill and that even a trained monkey could do, I don't think you deserve to be paid a lot, even if you have to work really hard (you don't deserve nothing but at the same time I don't think you deserve an inflated salary because of union membership). At the same time if you are a CEO with a very specialized skill set that not a lot of people have, then you deserve to be paid a lot since someone with your skills would be rarer and harder to hire. Besides I think people don’t realize how much high level executives work. A while back the CBC did a show where they had low level people from a company switch places with Presidents and CEO’s. The one I remember was a waitress from Boston Pizza switching places with the CEO. He had a difficult time getting used to being a waiter, but she was run ragged since for the 3 days she had the CEO job pretty much any time she wasn’t asleep she was on the job.
http://www.calgarysun.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=126771&x=articles&s=showbiz
As far as the mob goes, it is a lot more than just mob kickbacks. In the past mafia guys have infiltrated unions and made it so that their union gets the sweet contract with little or no competition, then does shoddy work and usually skims off the top for themselves. On top of that the mob in the past has had control of union bank accounts (Union Pension Fund’s run by the mob built a bunch of the old school casinos in Vegas).
bullshit.
corporations only give things if they are made to give them. Either by government (as it is it Britain for example) or by unions.
You and I live in two very different Americas
I work in an in industry where they would work us until we die unless someone interceeded.
just curious, have you ever been the recipient of union benefits?
Just curious what you do for a living, know?
I've edited my sig just for you BTW
There are plusses and minuses to both systems. Unions work really well for specialized industries and low wage less skilled workers by and large. It's not the be all end all. In some cases they deliver very well for the workers and in other cases they hold them back.
They work really crappy for high performing corporate employees for instance. If you have highly marketable skills, unions are generally bad news, because you can pit companies against each other. If you're in a union you get stuck with the same contract as everyone else in the union and because you're a group they just can't pay you more or give you more incentives because it prices them out of the market especially if they had to give it to everyone. Sales people, account executives etc... they do this almost daily. It's just like you as a consumer. You can spend your dollars on anything, but you want to buy the best in your price range. If you can find one piece to improve your safety, bottomline, compliance etc instead of hiring an entire group who may have good performers and bad performers you can improve your entire company.
Market driven jobs don't work for all people and union jobs don't work for all people. I tend to believe we need some of both in a healthy economy just like we need rules and regulations to make corporations do right we need to have positions available where individuals are rewarded for exceptional work. Those types of individuals aren't going to thrive in a union environment, they simply aren't going to work as hard because there isn't any incentive.
Wages at top levels often have a lot to do with risk and how much people are willing to take. That's why you can't pay an uneducated guy that pushes a broom 20 bucks an hour. It's irresponsible because globally people who aren't doing as well can and will do that job for a hell of a lot less money because there relatively is nothing to it. You have to keep the quality high and the wages/benifits competitive and then the market has to be willing to recognise quality as a reason to buy. Currently we don't give a crap largely about quality just price, that's why we have so many jobs being shipped overseas, that and our prohibitive tax code.
Big problems in these systems are that people are unwilling to take risks. Tarriffs, Price Supports, standing pat with education... it all hurts someone somewhere.
West Africa could produce cotton a lot cheaper than the US but we have Price Supports and Tarriffs. Cuba could eat into US tobacco and sugar big time but we have price supports, tarrifs, embargos...etc.
The US has a terrible trade deficit. We do need more Quality manufacturing back here and that means unions, but we've also got to be sensible about those contracts and make sure we stay competitive globally.
These systems can work very well with open dialog and truthful good business practices. Corporations and Unions both need checks and balances to keep the system healthy for all.
but not anymore, they are just an extra layer of fat in most cases
although I make an exception for the the teachers union-as they are still not fairly compensated for what they do (in most cases)
Work for a small graphic design and multimedia company who is a partner to some marketing and medical education companies.
Your signature would be more accurate if it was something to the effect of "Work Union, Lose Job to 3rd World Country"
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But the labor of the mill is a combination of all of the laborers work. The CEO is in a position by himself. One laborer isnt going to be productive enough to keep a mill or factory a float. So, who is more valueable to the company? A laborer who is one of hunderds, possibly thousands, or the CEO who is one of one and has over sight over the whole operation? I do agree that CEOs often times make more than they should, but there is certainly a different skillset involved when comparing a CEO to a laborer. The CEO is going to be more difficult to replace than a laborer in almost every situation, which is why the CEO should make quite a bit more than a laborer.
The pulp mill jobs were only Co-Op jobs while I was in university. I decided I did not want to go into that type of field when I graduated since I did not want to be stuck in a small town for the rest of my life.
wrong, as usual.
to be competitive with third world nations one of two things would have to happen
1.we would have to abolish the minimum wage and child labor laws. we cant compete at 7.00 per hour with half our workforce in elementary schools.
2. our government would have to punish companies for taking their wares elsewhere (like in England). OOps, the corporations control our government, so..not going to happen.
I take it you support these things.
bottom line:
corporations aren't interested in a good product or enriching the economy in which they live.
they don't care where a product is made, who makes it, whether it's a quality product or what it's made of.
they only care about one thing, making a product as cheaply as possible and selling it for as much as they can.
"that's capitalism", I'm sure you'd say. I call it slavery.
p.s. I've edited my sig again for you.
that's why we have unions, to even things out. If labor can stand up as a group they become more important to the company than the ceo. If they stop work the CEO has no company to run. I would say labor is more valuable to the company, thanks to unions.
Yes, labor as a group can be more important. Individual laborers are not. Unions have, and still do, provide a lot of good for workers rights, I dont argue that for a minute. Some unions do at times take it a bit far IMO, but overall I think they are good. But that still doesnt mean that a CEO isnt justified making much more than the workers. I do agree that some CEOs make well more than they are worth. But when you consider that there is only one CEO, and far fewer managers than laborers, then I think it certainly justifies a difference in pay between the 2 sides. Why should someone pushing a broom make $20 an hour? That is a job that many people can do, and would be willing to do for a lot less. Its not justified in paying that person that type of money.
Bad for those who profit from exploiting humans.
Unless the ones profiting are the people in charge of the unions.
fuck corporate america. . .for the most part they dont give a shit about the people who built there companies
JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002
9.10.98 NYC / 8.23.00 JONES BEACH /4.30.03 UNIONDALE / 7.9.03 NYC /5.12.06 ALBANY/ 6.1.06 E.RUTHEFORD/ 6.3.06 E. RUTHEFORD/ CAMDEN 6.19.08/ NYC 6.24.08/ NYC 6.25.08/ HARTFORD 6.27.08/ CHICAGO 8.24.09/ PHILLY 10.31.09/ HARTFORD 5.15.10/ NEWARK 5.18.10/ NYC 5.20.10/ CHICAGO 7.19.13/ BROOKLYN 10.18.13/ BROOKLYN 10.19.13/ HARTFORD 10.25.13/ NYC 9.26.15/ 4.8.16 FT. LAUDERDALE/ 4.9.16 MIAMI / 5.1.16 NYC/ 5.2.16 NYC / 8.5.16 BOSTON / 8.7.16 BOSTON/ 8.20.18 CHICAGO/ 9.2.18 BOSTON/ 9.4.18 BOSTON/ 9.18.21 ASBURY PARK
finally, FUCK TICKETMASTER
I just left the labor movement as a Union Organizer, to get more active in local/community activism...
As the labor movement currently stands, the pros and cons are as follows:
Pros:
* A grievance procedure
* A legally binding contract that the employees and the employer have agreed upon.
* Better benefits and wages.
* A sense of solidarity with your co-workers (if you work for it).
Cons:
* Unions tend to put their hired hierarchy before the dues paying members, which can lead to back door deals, and the members losing control over THEIR union's future.
* Unions tend to be leaning towards a corporate structure which will end up depleting the labor movement, rather than strengthen it.
Myths:
* Outsourcing is the fault of Unions. NO! You can only blame the corporation who did the outsourcing for their crime! They make record profits, and move overseas to make MORE!
* Union members are lazy! NO! The grievance procedure is set to give balance to employees and employers. If a member is in the wrong, stewards and representatives are trained to tell them when they are wrong, and that they will be wasting members' dues.
* You must pay fees! Depends on the state... In Illinois, there is fair share... Which means that if you don't want to be represented by the union, you must still pay a "fair share" since you are reaping the benefits of having that union.
* Unions promote time spent vs. hard work! Depends on how YOU negotiate YOUR contract! If it comes time for negotiations, and a majority of you feel that seniority should only stand for issues such as vacation time, but promotions, etc should be merit based, THEN NEGOTIATE IT!
Labor is simply a comodity. It's value is simply whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. If you need a union to get you ahead, maybe you need to figure out why.
Here's an interesting little factiod regarding unions and the steel industry: for the whole article: http://www.freetrade.org/node/239
That is until union leaders go softy on the contract negotiations so that they don't lose money on a strike. Or when they neglect the lower wage earners because they aren't paying the same dues as the higher wage earners. Or when member dues are spent on union election campaigns and smear projects as opposing union leaders square off for control.
And that's just the stuff that's actually allowed by law. That doesn't include the kick-backs from corporations for silent cooperation.
When you consider that most unions have a promotion/raise system based on seniority alone, the people who get screwed are the hard-working dependable employees who end up making the same wages and receiving the same raises as people who just do the bare minimum to keep from getting fired.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I don't like unions because they have the bad habit to get between me and my commute, but you have got to be kidding me :
1 - Correlation IS NOT causation. 3 out of 4 corporations with unions here have a president named gerald ==> therefore unions use name discrimination. Do the math.
2 - Labor is not a comodity. Unless you consider that the human being is a comodity. Philosphy and moral values evolve through time, what was true 2000 years ago is not true in todays society. Today a work defines who you are and what is your place in society. It is so much more than a simple comodity it's a reason of life for bilions of people.
3 - If labor is a comodity and the number of people available keep rising then,according to the geniuses who work on economy, the price of that comodity will go down. Until where? Is that moral? Is it possible? Don't you think it creates unstability? How many bloodsheds (wars and revolutions) were started because of poverty and empty stomachs? Or, less melodramatic, is a successful society possible where poverty and quality of life goes down instead of up?
The Auto unions are a bit nuts. I mean it is pretty crazy to ask for more money when the company you work for is losing money like crazy (and then threaten to strike if you don't get it). Do people not understand that no money at all is also an option?
I worked for a company that eventually had a similar situation. It was another pulp mill that ended up shutting down becuase it wasn't making money and had a ton of debt. Eventually I think some dude offered to buy it, but only on the condition that the union took a pay cut (in exchange for getting their jobs back). In exchange for the pay cut they would get profit sharing and a promise to return to their full wages if the place became profitable again. Yet the union turned down the offer since apparently they would rather have no paycheck then a lower paycheck (and this was in a town where there wasn't a lot of employment options). I think eventually union management got canned by the members (since with everyone out of work the only ones making any money were the union people).