Questions that need answering.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Unions have their uses, but unfortunately there have been to many abuses in the past to make me a supporter. Take for instance the UPS strike a few years back. UPS is chugging along as the top company in their industry. Then their union decides to organize a massive strike for more overtime pay. One year later the company is being usurped by FedEx, UPS' reputation is shot because of shutdowns and late deliveries, thousands of employees had been out of work for a year, and they had to cut back on how many people they could hire because of lost revenue.

How did that help the workers at the company?

Another one: The Teamsters like to think of themselves as bigshots, so they try to "bargain" with small/medium size business for more pay for their members. So they tend to drop threats, muscle themselves into a company, and then decide they want a part in running things. Unfortunately for their members this only has them working longer hours with a nominal bonus in pay because the company cannot afford to expand their workforce. Thye tried to do it at my father's job.

Now yes, in the face of the extremely greedy boss unions do help the average worker by fighting the slave driver upstairs, but quite frankly that rarely happens in most jobs in the U.S. or (stop me if I'm wrong) Europe anymore. There are so many laws relating to employment that trying to screw over your employees just doesn't end up as being advantageous.

To quote Imran:

"One of the reasons I dislike unions these days is most of them are run by corrupt bastards. In my work I deal with many people whose unions are stealing their pension money. It's totally ridiculous that these groups are supposed to be working for workers' rights."

Union leaders have to be the most corrupt bastards I have seen. They are supposed to do everything they can for their members but all to often there is abuse of power. Remember, there is no regulatory committee minding the union bosses like there is in Congress. I think the argument for unions is extremely flawed considering the reality we live in today.

I spent my formative years in Michigan where between the a$$holes in the union and the a$$holes running the companies they managed to permanently destroy the auto industry in the area. Both the car companies and the unions still exist, but the plants and jobs are long gone. Kind of the worst of both worlds really.

I think the largest problem with the union model is that it seeks to become a monopoly in its market area as opposed to embracing capitalism and becoming a corporation that supplies workers to other corporations. With the conflict model unions became the enemies of the the source of their livelihood, as opposed to partners in a competitive world. This destroyed the power of many unions in the U.S. and made them a marginal force in this country.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
3) Yeah it does make sense to lower prices in the states. Maybe it's more expensive in the states to make the medicine and the Canadians can make it cheaper therefore sell it cheaper. You could either lower prices or make it illegal to buy medicine in canada, both would work

It's cheaper here because we have laws limiting the amount drug manufacturers can charge.

[MrFun]

KH -- we don't have that kind of common sense among many of our political leaders here, I'm afraid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If neo-cons have no domestic policy, then they have no principles, then they have no problem with steel tarriffs to please PA, or a healthcare expansion, or federal funding of schools, or any other politically motivated handout. With no policy they have no ideology to stand on and are exposed to massive, unrestrained PORK.

There is only one neo-con policy, often refered to as 'Hard Wilsonianism'. It is basically to use force to spread democracy and Western values. Wilsonianism but with muscle behind it.

Neo-cons can embrace a series of different domestic ideologies (and they do), but all it is a foreign policy and that is it. What its members choose to do in the domestic sphere is none of its business.

They have plenty of ideology, it is only limited to the foreign sphere. Domestically its members can believe what they like.

Just because you close your eyes to it, doesn't mean we don't believe in things .

Remember, there is no regulatory committee minding the union bosses like there is in Congress.

The NLRB is supposed to help in this, but they are useless for the most part. They won't help in disputes between the union and its members.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sikander


Interesting. I was talking with my dad about his high school days. He grew up in rural Oregon, and got a job in 1954 installing televisions and antennae. This was no small task either, as the nearest station (VHF) was miles away so the antennae were large like one of those expensive ham radio antenna. We figured out that each of these sets cost the purchaser about $4000 in today's dollars. All for one crappy VHF station that probably had programming for about 12 hours a day.

Well do you mean:

1) that you think that people used to spend a lot of money on luxury goods (ie higher cost of living than today)

2) or that the wages of today are meeting our cost of living (ie BW TV cost the same relative to a Plasma TV today?)

3) or that more people bought TV's at a lower relative price back then (meaning we had a lower cost of living back then).

My opinion is that today wages are outpacing our cost of living. Today we can buy a TV, Xbox, car, fridge, and a computer whereas back then a tv, fridge, and car was the norm. Or maybe we just have a wider variety today. But then, if we have a wider variety doesn't that equate to a higher standard of living?

And yeah, I have to say that the only Michael Moore documentary I liked and actually believed was totally fair to both automaker and employee was the one he did on Flint Michigan. The people got screwed, plain and simple.

Not like I'm an activist though. My Ford was made in Mexico, by good hardworking Mexicans.