01 XLT Sport

I wondered when you would pop in here...Interesting that we have differeing views on things. I thought you were simply an extroverted and intoxicated version of myself. I hold probably the most unpopular view of all, believing in self-determination so much so I wish things were back like they were in the 1780s. Unfair labor acts should be protected by law, re/ your previous comment.

I'm of the mindset that part of what made this country great is self-determination and the WASP work ethic (even though I'm Catholic I can appreciate it). I do not believe that anyone is entitled to anything: health insurance, retirement, education, 40 hour week, etc. I feel that Unions are portrayed (by the Union members) as the "good" fighting the "evil management and companies". In reality, I think Unions represent those that are not as successful as they want to be banding together to demand certain "rights" against the movers and shakers of the country, rather than looking up to and trying to emulate those movers and shakers. There was once a day when Rockefellers were looked up to as a goal one could attain. Now people look at the rich as if they have done something wrong. Donald Trump and Bill Gates did nothing wrong, they simply were smarter and/or gutsier than the rest of us. People dislike them simply because they feel like losers when compared to them.

Many suggest that the wealthy of the world just "inherited" their money or "didn't work for it". The fact of the matter remains that if somebody is wealthier than you, somewhere, some ancestor of theirs was out kicking butt while yours was out sitting on his or her a$$.

We have discussed economics here before, and I have admitted that I am a Keynesian, or rather a modern day Rational Expectationist. But with regard to labor, I am really more of a Classical economist, meaning I hold with Adam Smith's rule - laissez faire or "hands off". Intermediaries should not exist between business and the labor force. The market will always find the proper balance. Employees will move to the better employer. I will also add that I think that at one time Unions were necessary. I believe the Industrial Revolution suddenly and shockingly brought in a new factor of production - technology - in such a fashion that a completely unusual situation arose (monopolies and sweatshops). That time has passed, however.

 

Frank S

FRANK! I can't believe we disagree on something!!! Corporate greed?!?!? Have you been possessed by Dennis' spirit?

The minimum wage and 16-hour day prohibition you speak of is via law (the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938), not Union governance. Indeed, they are always in there fighting for an increase, but the luxuries themselves would exist without Unions.

What about worker greed? Aren't we all attempting to get paid as much as possible for as little "cost"? Are you telling me that Unions and all Union members are operating out of the goodness of their hearts, and if given an opportunity to seize a $10/hr wage hike they wouldn't jump all over it regardless of whether they "ethically" needed it?

Apparently in our capitalist system greed is only allowed to work in one direction. Very interesting........

 

Twister, welcome to F150 online. "Brother"

Your post made me remember another few points, The "Brotherhood", I can go anywhere in the country to any Union firehouse and get just about anything I need, there is a bond among Union brothers. Its real strong(the bond) in the Fire service I'm sure it's the same way for the teamstersm and others.
We take care of each other.

Another point, a large company may have 1000's of workers, what a nightmare it would be to have to deal with them on an indivdual basis.So in some cases it may help the company in setting up fair pay grades for different dutys.

How would you feel about somone who just got hired, does the same job as you, in fact they are a little less productive than you , however they make more money because they know someone?! That will sure kill morale in the workplace, which in turn would effect production. So Unions can benefit those on both sides.

 

It seems that all the great things mentioned about unions could be said about welfare too.

 

YUP Nicely Put I think we can do without Both

 

cpadpl:

Well, I wouldn't go so far as say we disagree on unions. If I had the power to make a choice of unions in America I would get rid of all of them. They do much more harm then they do good. The lastest example was the strike our west. From my understand it was basically over "bar-codes" which would mean better control, knowing where things are etc instead of using paper and clipboards. The unions didn't like that because it would mean some job loss. Those that would have lost a job were the ones that shouldn't have been making the money they were making to begin with.

When unions first began I think it was a good thing, it insured safety in the workplace, decent hours, etc. in general business's are NOT out to screw employees. For them in order to do well they need good employees, smart employees, so it makes no sence to screw them and have them leave.

You will find the ones that complain are the lazy, useless, not willing to continue their education to stay on top. That is were the unions really screw the companies. A company can not afford to keep these type of people they do harm to the company which in turn harms all the good employees and the community itself.

Myself I am not union, and thank GOD for that or I would not be able to make what I make and move up as I have. They have this "seniority" thing in unions that makes NO sence to me at all. It don't matter how long you have been somewhere it should be the MOST qualified gets the best job with pay.

To me, people who depend on someone to take care of them are scared and/or lazy, it is that simple. Be it walfare or unions when you need protection it is because you can not make it on your own with your own merits. Unions are just like the gov't they take advantage of the people they serve.

Someone mentioned in this thread something about unions keeping a failing company from failing. That is BS, unions can and will never keep a company from failing or closing its doors ever. However, a union can and does assist a failing company to fail much sooner then it should have. One reason for that is unions hold companies back from progressing forward, like the strike out west and clipboards (30's & 40's) to barcodes (90's & 00's)

As far an ENRON and those employees loosing money. Oh well if they had been educated on how to invest corectly they would not have lost much at all. It is the ENRON employees fault for loosing money, most of which had close to 100% of their money in ENRON and none of them were crying about it when they were making a KILLING on their investments in the begining. So I don't feel bad for their lose, they contibuted just as much to their loss as ENRON did.

It boils down to this. If you have a function that is important, vital to a company and do it well you will succeed on your own, no need for a union.

If you the person that puts a nut on a bolt, well anyone can do that especailly overseas and that's were it belongs, overseas cheap labor. You shouldn't have to have a union protecting someone that puts a nut on a bolt, why? makes no sence. If that is what you do you need to get some education to move forward or be prepared to stay were your at. Like McDonalds etc anyone can cook a hambuger and that's not a bad job, but it is stagnet, or a entre level job, like the nut on a bolt, move up or make what your making without crying about it. After all if it is the choice you made, you can get more education or not, that is your choice.

 

How true, how true......Maybe someone needs to tell this braniacs that they shouldn't have had all their 401k in one investment.

 

"How true, how true......Maybe someone needs to tell this braniacs that they shouldn't have had all their 401k in one investment."

Most people should know that by now. It has been stated over and over. Any information you get about investment will tell you that. It is basic 101.

Anyone who is going to invest either needs to read the information "on their own" search for information "on their own" or NOT invest. It's called personal responsibility, those that have it do fine, those that don't get burned (oh well )

 

in nature the strongest survife.
in Union the lasyest survife´s
usually....

 

I agree except that I understood that Enron required that your money go into their stock until you had 7 yrs with the company.. in that case, it isnt too fair..

 

Not true. There is a diversification requirement under ERISA Sec. 404(c) that most 401(k) plans adhere (i.e. you'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't like that). Enron's was such a plan.

What you are refering to is the IRC Sec. 401(m) component of Enron's 401(k) plan, or rather what people call "the match". Like most publicly traded companies that have company stock as a match, until vesting occurs there is no ability to move the match anywhere.

However, the employees were able to invest their IRC Sec. 401(k) elective deferrals in ANYTHING THEY WANTED mutual fund wise, but also including employer stock. Some of them weren't very smart, or rather most weren't very smart, and decided to put their DEFERRAL into Enron stock along with the match that was already in it.

Bottom line, those people invested their own money into Enron stock. Albeit, Enron did engage in fraud, and those individuals were locked out of changing their investments while the stock was tanking due to existing ERISA rules. However, no one should intentionally put all their eggs in one basket.

 

So very true. NEVER put all your eggs in one basket because if you trip and fall you will break all the eggs...

 

thanks for clearing that one up.. I do know about the IRS code having set up a couple of 401k plans for my employer.. so I was surprised when I first heard that the employees were required to put "their" money into the company stock.. but one doesnt know everything..
I agree, I look at my investments on their own.. I dont as a rule put my money in the company stock for the company Iwork for.. even though it has outperformed the market as of late.. (but then again what hasnt.. lost so much in my retirement I'll have to work another 10 years to make up for the last few)..
Dana

 

Another thing to note about the unions and the mass public NOT believing in the unions, and being just fine with moving low tech. jobs overseas is this:

The mass public here in America has made it very clear for many years that they believe and that they WANT the low tech. jobs to go overseas where it cost much less for the labor.

How do I know this, simple, the American people want the best product at the least cost, hence low tech. jobs going overseas is fine thus the American people have spoken and made their position known to the unions: stop crying about jobs going overseas because the majority of American people want that.

I would ask this of any union member who does NOT support low tech. jobs going overseas.

Do you buy all your clothes made only in America?
Do you buy all your shoes made only in America?
Do you only buy food grown here in America?

If you answer no to any of those above then you too agree with low tech. jobs going overseas so remember that the next time your union starts crying about the low tech. jobs leaving your company. and tell your union brother or sister that you support low tech. overseas where it really belongs...

 

As a die hard American, I must say that if I were to have my own business, I would also want the lowest cost way to produce material and make a profit. I worked at General Motors for a School - to - Work program for a period of one year. And, after seeing how poorly the workers performed and how lazy they were, I came to an immediate understanding as to why cars cost so much. Of course, the unions then protect the workers incompetence.

Why did these workers perform so poorly? Quite simple, the union protects them and they know it, it ends up costing the consumer more.

I had windows installed at my house this summer, and I didn't know that the contractors were unionized. When they dicovered that the windows I purchased came from a non-union factory, they refused to install them, unless I agreed to have the windows rebuilt at their cost. How pathetic is that!!