Another victory for the unions!

[Pliny]

It is very much a be life system. I wouldn't say it a religion hut one truly has to have faith that such a system will work.

So basically, much evil can be accomplished with it. Because it is a belief of communism that all other systems are evil (the evil capitalist for example)

that it has the right to destroy them. If you get enough people to believe that you then have a powerful collective force to vanquish the enemy.

Unfortunately, the collective is not really necessary today to vanquish evil it can be done with an atomic bomb as in WW II. Only someone with an abiding faith in the State could do that - then or now.

[Pliny]

You're talking about numbers. I'm talking about conviction.

I have no problem with the notion that communism has killed more.

Completely and cheerfully, I leave to religion.

Completely and cheerfully, you leave to religion....? Conviction? Evil? Numbers?

Conviction to a religion alone would not have killed anyone. State powers are necessary to do that. It is the reason America's founders instituted the separation of church and State in it's constitution. So that no religion had power enough to override another and all could co-exist. Force is the power of the State not of religion. A single religion may insist upon a theocratic state but under that scenario church and State are the same. Monarchies or States that adopted State religions gave the religions their power of force. Certainly, people collectively grant power to the State for it to exist in the first place, in whatever form they think best, but the granting of the use of force is intended by the people for defensive purposes and the State generally abuses that power by taking the offensive or creating dilemmas to justify doing so.

I don't want to take this too far from the thread topic but suffice it to say that a collective that unquestioningly follows its leaders so they may benefit sees only the benefits and never the whole scenario except what its leaders tells them it is.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Pliny

[Guest]

Completely and cheerfully, you leave to religion....? Conviction? Evil? Numbers?

Conviction to a religion alone would not have killed anyone. State powers are necessary to do that. It is the reason America's founders instituted the separation of church and State in it's constitution. So that no religion had power enough to override another and all could co-exist. Force is the power of the State not of religion. A single religion may insist upon a theocratic state but under that scenario church and State are the same. Monarchies or States that adopted State religions gave the religions their power of force. Certainly, people collectively grant power to the State for it to exist in the first place, in whatever form they think best, but the granting of the use of force is intended by the people for defensive purposes and the State generally abuses that power by taking the offensive or creating dilemmas to justify doing so.

I don't want to take this too far from the thread topic but suffice it to say that a collective that unquestioningly follows its leaders so they may benefit sees only the benefits and never the whole scenario except what its leaders tells them it is.

Where do you get the notion that state powers are necessary to kill someone?

[Pliny]

Where do you get the notion that state powers are necessary to kill someone?

Did I say that? I'm sorry I think I was trying to say the State generally reserves that right to themselves. Of course anyone has the power to kill someone but only the State can do it without impunity or sanction it in the name of religion, or the police or the SS or the armed forces or whoever else they choose, like Scientists who will gas the useless eaters of Germany or embark upon the sterilization of what it deems are undesirables or ship them to Siberia or may in the future wish to rid the world of those pesky mentally deficient deniers of scientific and political progress.

Just think of how much the collective can do with the power of the state behind them. Usually the State gives them some right, privilege or entitlement and then they start doing their damage while they make the world their oyster. It falls apart when other people's money runs out or the State is replaced with another regime.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Pliny

[dre]

The big problem is that management and unions don't work together.

Yup, and they also dont trust each other and the relationship is very adversarial.

Theres an example of another way to run a business near where I live.

The multinational that owned Harmac, a pulp and paper plant in Nanaimo decided they could not turn a profit there either, and was going to shut it down and liquidate. With a bit of backing from investors and government (in the form of loan guarantees) the union/workers purchased an ownership stake, and the previous managers were turfed out on their ass. Once the workers got a look at the real books, and has some actual responsibility for the fate of the company they accepted a reduction in wages and benefits, and the flattened organizational structure made the operation more efficient.

The mill is still open, and its profitable again now. Workers are recieving dividends that partially offset losses in wages, and the plant is now looking to expand.

An employee backed purchase of the Harmac Pacific mill site has created a diversified industrial site centered around a highly competitive, low cost Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft pulp production facility. The shared focus of all owners is to maximize the profit potential of the Harmac Pacific pulp mill and associated property and facilities.

The organizational ownership structure is unique to British Columbia industrial manufacturing, for a business of this scale. Harmac Pacific has moved from a traditional labour model based upon the often conflicting self interests of owners, managers and labour, to a new model based upon employee ownership and common interest, focused on a commitment to the profitable operation of the business.

Each permanent employee has committed to purchase a $25,000 ownership stake in the company over a three year period. Employee ownership currently stands at 25% of the company equity. This ownership interest, combined with a flattened organizational structure, has eliminated the inefficiencies that have developed in the forest products industry in this region.

http://www.harmacpac...m/employees.php

A similar approach could be tried with companies like Hostess. The workers with a little bit of help could buy an ownership stake, along with other interested investors, and ditch the traditional bloated and adversarial labor/management/owership model.

Edited November 19, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

There's even more to this story now. I don't know if this was posted yet, but ...

Hostess took Union members self funded pensions without their authorization to pay their debts - will not be paid back under bankruptcy (DailyKos article from reddit)

Theft is totally ok if it's done by executives. Not so much if you're a thug on the street though.

Edited November 19, 2012 by cybercoma

[Pliny]

Yup, and they also dont trust each other and the relationship is very adversarial.

Theres an example of another way to run a business near where I live.

The multinational that owned Harmac, a pulp and paper plant in Nanaimo decided they could not turn a profit there either, and was going to shut it down and liquidate. With a bit of backing from investors and government (in the form of loan guarantees) the union/workers purchased an ownership stake, and the previous managers were turfed out on their ass. Once the workers got a look at the real books, and has some actual responsibility for the fate of the company they accepted a reduction in wages and benefits, and the flattened organizational structure made the operation more efficient.

The mill is still open, and its profitable again now. Workers are recieving dividends that partially offset losses in wages, and the plant is now looking to expand.

http://www.harmacpac...m/employees.php

A similar approach could be tried with companies like Hostess. The workers with a little bit of help could buy an ownership stake, along with other interested investors, and ditch the traditional bloated and adversarial labor/management/owership model.

If it helps to reconnect their concept of value to their production it should be positive. Unions promote the idea of getting more for doing less and are themselves their own worst enemy.

[dre]

If it helps to reconnect their concept of value to their production it should be positive. Unions promote the idea of getting more for doing less and are themselves their own worst enemy.

This is just silly. Take a look at what it was like to be a worker before collective bargaining, and at what its like to be worker today in places that dont have it.

A union is simply a labor corporation. OF COURSE its focus is to make money for its members, no different than how a regular corporations purpose is to make money for its shareholders.

But like I said this traditional model has its problems, and worker ownership is one way to solve it.

Edited November 19, 2012 by dre

[Pliny]

There's even more to this story now. I don't know if this was posted yet, but ...

Hostess took Union members self funded pensions without their authorization to pay their debts - will not be paid back under bankruptcy (DailyKos article from reddit)

Theft is totally ok if it's done by executives. Not so much if you're a thug on the street though.

That's not ok. If it is true. You trust the dailiy kos?

I thikn you have said in the past that Union members basically have no responsibility for the existence of their jobs that it is entirely the responsibility of management. The company folds and it's management's fault.

It's typical victim think."I am not responsible for anything that happens to me other people are doing it all to me. I was doing my job but those guys weren't doing theirs. All management is evil. All businesses are evil. It seems that Government, not being about profit, is the only entity that can be relied upon for my existence. It gives me things."

Now you are ready for your next heartbreak.

[Pliny]

This is just silly. Take a look at what it was like to be a worker before collective bargaining, and at what its like to be worker today in places that dont have it.

What was it like before collective bargaining? And what is it like in places today that don't have it?

I've read all the Union propaganda pieces and I see only 8% of jobs in the private sector in America are Union represented. Why aren't they more popular? Doesn't everyone want a Union job?

A union is simply a labor corporation. OF COURSE its focus is to make money for its members, no different than how a regular corporations purpose is to make money for its shareholders.

Well the Union should encourage its members to be more productive then. Not get more for doing the same amount or less production.

But like I said this traditional model has its problems, and worker ownership is one way to solve it.

Yep. They can toss the Unions then.

[dre]

What was it like before collective bargaining? And what is it like in places today that don't have it?

1. I've read all the Union propaganda pieces and I see only 8% of jobs in the private sector in America are Union represented. Why aren't they more popular? Doesn't everyone want a Union job?
   

Well the Union should encourage its members to be more productive then. Not get more for doing the same amount or less production.

Yep. They can toss the Unions then.

What was it like before collective bargaining? And what is it like in places today that don't have it?

What was it like before collective bargaining? And what is it like in places today that don't have it?

Well life for workers was short and brutal. They were forced to work in very dangerous conditions for very little pay and were subject to all kinds of abuse.

Well the Union should encourage its members to be more productive then. Not get more for doing the same amount or less production.

Thats a myth. Read the "harbour report" for the last few years that studies productivity between union and non union shops in the automotive sector. 3 of the top 5 shops in productivity are union shops. THeres really no difference between the two.

I've read all the Union propaganda pieces and I see only 8% of jobs in the private sector in America are Union represented.

The funny thing is that after all your libertarian free market bluster you would deny workers the right to freely associate and operate as a collective. Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right, and the only way you can abolish it is to strip individuals of their right to free association.

So much for free markets huh?

[Bonam]

I'd rather have a job at 25k, so that I have at least some income, while I look for another job, instead of having no job at all. But that's just me personally. I don't know how others feel.

Screw that, if you're gonna get your pay cut from 48k to 25k, take the EI (or don't) and leave. You find a new job way quicker when you can devote 100% of your time and energy to the search, rather than doing it in the evening after your full time job. Working for a few dimes over minimum wage is a waste of time if you have the skills/education to get a job that pays a professional wage. Of course, the decision should be up to individuals, not unions.

[Pliny]

Well life for workers was short and brutal. They were forced to work in very dangerous conditions for very little pay and were subject to all kinds of abuse.

And they didn't quit?

Thats a myth. Read the "harbour report" for the last few years that studies productivity between union and non union shops in the automotive sector. 3 of the top 5 shops in productivity are union shops. THeres really no difference between the two.

Well, I don't see why non-union shops exist? Management likes production and should encourage them.

The funny thing is that after all your libertarian free market bluster you would deny workers the right to freely associate and operate as a collective. Collective bargaining is a fundamental human right, and the only way you can abolish it is to strip individuals of their right to free association.

So much for free markets huh?

I would not deny workers the right of free association. It is forced association that needs to be abolished.

If you don't wish to understand a Libertarian free market, I understand but saying you do and condemning it for your own misunderstanding of it is rather foolish.

[punked]

Screw that, if you're gonna get your pay cut from 48k to 25k, take the EI (or don't) and leave. You find a new job way quicker when you can devote 100% of your time and energy to the search, rather than doing it in the evening after your full time job. Working for a few dimes over minimum wage is a waste of time if you have the skills/education to get a job that pays a professional wage. Of course, the decision should be up to individuals, not unions.

At this point Shady wants the unions to be wrong so bad he will say anything even if he knows it is crazy.

[Guest]

I've worked in both Union and non Union environments, and I have to say I prefer to work without one. It might just be the job market in Alberta, but I find skilled employees are treated very well here, with remuneration usually based on merit, which is the only fair way to pay someone for work, and worker safety and working conditions well taken care of by the Occupational Health and Safety regs. Some companies are actually a little too strict when it comes to safety.

There was a time when Unions were essential, and in some parts of the world that might still be the case, but in most of the first world I think they are in danger of becoming nothing more than an anachronism.

[Wilber]

And they didn't quit?

Quit and do what, go work somewhere else with the same conditions. Like it or not, unions have improved conditions in non union companies because they provide competition when it comes to providing decent working conditions.

Well, I don't see why non-union shops exist? Management likes production and should encourage them.

Much more difficult to divide and conquer for one thing.

I would not deny workers the right of free association. It is forced association that needs to be abolished.

Compulsory union membership is a myth.

In Canada, no one is forced to join a union. A non member in a union job must pay dues however as the courts have ruled they benefit from the unions representation even though they aren't a member. A court can also rule that a non member's dues go to a registered charity if it is convinced contributing to a union goes against a persons religious or other beliefs.

In the US, the Supreme Court has also ruled that union membership is not mandatory and unions can only collect dues from non members that are specifically used for collective bargaining.

Unions are democratic organizations where elected representatives act for the membership and all are bound by the will of the majority. You still have to pay taxes and obey laws if the Conservatives win the election but you voted Liberal.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Found this tidbit.

http://www.cepr.net/...al-from-hostess

How does a company come out of bankruptcy with 50% more debt than it had going in and where did the money go?

Edited November 19, 2012 by Wilber

[guyser]

No need for China.

We make Ding Dongs here and can ship 'em south.

[punked]

Found this tidbit.

http://www.cepr.net/...al-from-hostess

How does a company come out of bankruptcy with 50% more debt than it had going in and where did the money go?

I told you at the start of the thread. They got bought by a company like Bane who loaded them up with more and more debt to take out against the company.

[Wilber]

I told you at the start of the thread. They got bought by a company like Bane who loaded them up with more and more debt to take out against the company.

Yes but don't you find it interesting that someone would loan that kind of money against a company in bankruptcy. What's in it for them other than a really risky loan at junk rates.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes but don't you find it interesting that someone would loan that kind of money against a company in bankruptcy. What's in it for them other than a really risky loan at junk rates.

I'm sure it was stipulated somewhere that they would be paid first when everything tanked. Too bad for the seniors collecting pensions that they're not similarly protected. But, the laws aren't set up to protect people - just investors.

[bush_cheney2004]

Depending on the plan type, "seniors" are protected by the PGBC up to a maximum annual limit. The PGBC is currently underfunded by about $35 billion, with obligations of $119 billion.

[CPCFTW]

There's even more to this story now. I don't know if this was posted yet, but ...

Hostess took Union members self funded pensions without their authorization to pay their debts - will not be paid back under bankruptcy (DailyKos article from reddit)

Theft is totally ok if it's done by executives. Not so much if you're a thug on the street though.

An editorial from a Hostess baker? Sounds unbiased...

[cybercoma]

Right, because we should only listen to what the managers say about it.

[CPCFTW]

Right because we should believe that a baker that was getting paid $14-$16/hr was contributing $3/hr to his pension (on top of insurance, taxes, etc.)

The pension was an underfunded defined benefit plan and will be taken over by the pension benefit guaranty corp... The pension plan had $56M in assets and $111M in liabilities. That means the union demanded defined benefits which their contributions couldn't sustain. The money's still there, it just wont pay out as much as the union demanded now that the company is bankrupt.

Google it and feel free to come back and apologize for using dailykos as a source.