Posted on 10/20/2010 5:53:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
"I thought unions were great -- until at Chrysler, the union steward started screaming at me. Working at an unhurried pace, I'd exceeded 'production' for that job."
That comment, left on my blog by a viewer who watched my Fox Business Network show about unions, matches my experience. No one ordered me to slow down, but union rules and union culture at ABC and CBS slowed the work. Sometimes a camera crew took five minutes just to get out of the car.
Now unions conspire with politicians to rip off taxpayers.
Steve Melanga of the Manhattan Institute complains that politicians get union political support by granting government workers generous pensions and health benefits. After those politicians leave office, taxpayers are liable for trillions in unfunded promises.
"It's squeezing out all other spending," Melanga says. "Where are we going to get this $3 trillion dollars? ... When they're (government workers) allowed to retire at 58 and the rest of us are retiring at 60 and 67 -- and by the way we're living to 80 -- it's crazy. The public sector is the version of the European welfare state which, by the way, in Europe, they're actually rolling back."
John Gage, president of the biggest federal workers union, the American Federation of Government Employees, disagrees: "This thing about unions and the public sector and bankrupting America, that's very far from the truth. Yes, we have a problem with pensions. Basically because these pension plans haven't been properly funded."
Melanga's response: "Fund public-sector pensions at a level that we can afford, (and turn) the pension system into a defined-contribution system. Public-sector employee unions and states have refused to do that."
A defined-contribution plan is like your 401(k). Your pension benefits depend on how well your investments do. State and local unions, by contrast, have "defined-benefit" plans, which simply force taxpayers to send retirees a monthly check.
Gage doesn't like Malanga's suggestion: "Can you imagine working 30, 35 years ... and (with) what just happened with the (stock) market, suddenly you're left holding nothing?"
I don't think they'd be holding "nothing." Yes, the market crashed, but the Dow is still above 11,000. Twenty-eight years ago, it was below 800. That's up more than 1,000 percent. Over time, 401(k)s provide a decent retirement.
When I said that we in the private sector have such plans, Gates responded, "Only because of the laws in this country which make it almost impossible for private-sector workers to organize and to have a union. ... (W)ithout unions, we'd have a 'race to the bottom.'"
But this makes no sense. Do all employers move to Mexico because wages are lower there?
But many viewers side with Gage:
Grover said: "Stossel's take on Unions is nothing but appalling. According to him, workers have no rights. Workers are the ones who make a company profitable, not CEOs. In Stossel's slanted view, worker's are dirt and don't deserve anything."
Jakob wrote: "Are you really this stupid? Do you really want to lower American workers' standards to that of Honduras and China, where democratic unions do not exist? Would you like for us to go back to a time in America before we had unions? When children worked in factories for 14-hour days and health and safety standards simply did not exist?"
These are popular views. But they are wrong. Factories are safer because of free markets. Companies want better workers and must compete to get them. Free markets create wealth that permits parents to send their kids to schools instead of factories. Unions once helped to advance working conditions, but now union work rules mostly retard growth and progress.
Many workers understand that, and that's why only 8 percent of private-sector workers still belong to unions. In the private sector, wage and pension demands are tempered by competition. If one company pays too much, a competitor takes his business.
But governments are monopolies. They face no competition and get their money by force. So they can conspire with public-sector unions to milk taxpayers. That explains the fix we're in today.
Something's got to give.
Dream on....
“Something’s got to give.”
Historically speaking, the connection between the uneasy ruling head and the trunk of the body is the part that generally ‘gives’.
California has the 8th largest economy in the world; far outpacing most UN Member countries; and around 80% of what California spends goes to three things:
Salaries and Wages
Benefits
Pensions
In Oregon, PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) guarantees union retirees a steady 8% return. That alone has caused some smaller towns in rural Oregon to lay off a police officer or a fireman in order to divert that money into their mandatory pension contributions. It’s killing localities, but as long as the biggest voting block in Oregon is current and former State employees (read: Union members) no reform of any kind is likely to happen.
At some point, this whole mess comes crashing down because none of it is sustainable.
A 10% income tax on union members would be a good idea. lol
I think we need to create competition between unions and public. Why not create the AMERICAN TAXPAYER UNIONS OF AMERICA, by buy off the politicians to work for us!
Labor Unions Choke America
The communists infiltrated the Unions years ago and their thinking prevails and I can personally attest to the communist infiltration part.
Let unions compete as employee-owned profit making corporations in the business of supplying skilled labor. They will then figure out how to optimize the productivity of their product for their customers. The key to making it just would be to make sure conflict-of-interest doesn't take over in the form of directorships or in-house subsidiaries.
The three guys who framed my house were union. They were fast, professional, and worked their asses off. They were ALWAYS on time. One of them RAN wherever he went. I have never in my life seen such a fast man with a hammer on sofit sheathing, blunting every nail to keep the wood from splitting. Bart was awesome (wherever you are guy, you have my undying admiration as a fellow craftsman). When I wanted to make changes, I just did them. The hammers didn't hit the ground, there were no monopolistic behaviors. It was mutual respect.
The reason these guys belonged to the union was because it provided health insurance, catastrophic accident coverage, and a pension. Think about it, and cut the gross generalizations. It alienates people who might otherwise listen.
Missing in this thread of logic is the fact that the unions have contributed greatly to economic downfalls of States and private entities. Then the Unions say that they don’t want into the free market retirement systems that have fallen because of union corruption and its costs.
One wonders what the economic figures would be like if we did not have greedy and unprincipled unions manipulating government acts and legal processes.
[Workers are the ones who make a company profitable, not CEOs]
That’s bull. CEOs are who make the company profitable. They are more highly compsensated because they are not easily replaced. Many “workers”, on the other hand, perform a job that any unskilled laborer can do, which is why in a sane world (and free market), they are not as highly compensated.
people used to say to me, a teen in the workforce, "HEY KID! Yor bustin' our bawls!"
On a Chicago construction site, a skinny kid like me on one end of a 12' sheet of fire-code drywall, walking up a narrow flight of stairs, those fat-asses wouldn't bother to get out of your way.
Anyway, check out how the unions are getting their place at the Obama Banquet now:
I take it you have a problem with partnerships and the right of free association. What is wrong in current law is MONOPOLY unions. The principle makes a mockery of equal protection. OTOH the position you are taking is making a mockery of freedom.
And, don't tell me what to "cut", I'm not one of your union goons and I don't take orders or allow my freedom of speech to be threatened by them...or you.
If you think I can believe I can "command" you, you are daft. I am suggesting you take another tack if you want to be successful in winning elections for conservative candidates.
If you had read a little closer, you would see that I was speaking mostly of the union bosses and organizers...
That is total c-r-a-p. Anyone you might wish to persuade would see what you wrote as a broad brush, which is why I criticized it.
There are a lot of nice, hard-working union members, but usually they are coerced into becoming members, like it or not. I was, and I didn't like it, so I quit the union.
Oh, so by your own admission, you once represented that unmitigated evil, and were incapable of persuasion. If YOU had read carefully, you would see that I am pointing to the forces that hold unions together, forces that we must address intelligently lest they remain monopolistic. Hence, it is neither intelligent nor productive to demonize the rank and file by association, as you did, whether your lack of precision was intentional or not.
...the difference is, I worked and earned it and did not wait on a union "entitlement" to give it to me.
I would bet my life that the guys I cited work and earn their benefits, nor do they particularly like the union. They shopped around and the union gave them a better deal on fringes, just like any rational business person might do. Otherwise, they operate in a completely independent fashion as business owners (which they are).
Whether you think what I said is “c-r-a-p” or not is irrelevant to me. I see the “union mentality” is living in your head, rent free. So be it. Have a nice life.
Of course you do, because you make enemies of everybody who doesn't agree with your inestimable opinion, whether reality has anything to do with it or not.
I have managed million-dollar industrial construction projects in Belgium, Canada, and the US. These projects involved installing large custom process machinery of my design. In all three cases, the plant was very happy not to have to manage the training, personnel costs, and management headache, albeit we didn't appreciate monopoly pricing and lack of the power to discipline.
In all three cases, I broke "union rules" with impunity and the workers respected it, because I was willing to put on coveralls and do what take risks they were rightly unwilling to take. They respected my welding and fabrication skills. Even though they had every right to walk off the job because I'd picked up a stinger, a cutoff saw, and a torch. They offered good advice with regard to local codes. You see, most craft people are people before they are union, and they don't want a lazy dangerous goofball in their midst because they're too damned dangerous to tolerate. They like a project that works out well. To this day, some of these guys are my friends, one of whom is a highly-skilled dog trainer in Belgium.
The only exception I have met in my project management career were government unions, which are the absolute worst. There, I have NEVER met even one "worker" I thought was worth his salary, not one. It doesn't matter whether they are cops, firefighters, or SEIU types.
In any case, you are sadly lacking as a capitalist, in that you cannot see an opportunity when it is right in front of your face. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company in the business of supplying skilled labor to its customers, which is all I am arguing for. Your assailing the unalienable right of free association and private contract is appalling in a FReeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.