Why did you have to bring up Mickey Kaus? I feel like a bath now.

Who knew that paying janitors ten bucks an hour would doom our way of life?

Perhaps you own a small illiberal bunker?

Look:
Some of us own acres and acres of underground space that requires a dozen nannies or so to clean and administer.

So go fuck yourself Kevin.

Or better yet... get a job and buy a bigger bunker.
Maybe then you will feel compassion for those of us who aren't born "lucky duckies."

---
I'm mightily interested in feasible real-world proposals for "better institutions...that offer workers the same degree of bargaining power that unions provide," but what are they?
---

How about requiring employees to vote on CEO/management compensation?

CEO's that don't share the wealth have the growth in their pay restricted.

If that's not corrosive to our way of life, what is?

Dumber than dog shit.

But since stupid asks a stupid question:

Craven, zitfaced nothingfuck... this is way more corrosive: $6300 wasted per second in Iraq

Transparency. All compensation, private or public, must be made available for public scrutiny if you want to do business in America.

Industrious journalists or liberal foundations could create indices of the most progressive and regressive businesses in the land.

Would make for good reading.

---
Secret ballots are better, and more fair.
---

You're right; not only should ballots be secret, but the vote should be completely secret.

The company shouldn't even know a vote has taken place until after the results are in.

---
Transparency. All compensation, private or public, must be made available for public scrutiny if you want to do business in America.
---

Right; since prices form the foundation of all economic signaling, everyone should know what everyone else makes.

That way folks can rationally choose which career paths to pursue.

I guess I come out on the side that unions can do damage to the economy if overpowerful but bring benefits to society when they are not.

Sort of like capitalism works when the benefits devolve to all levels of society and doesn't when it benefits only a small percentage of same society.

Well, which way has it tended? As already covered in prior posts, and there are lots of factors involved, but 1945-1975 saw a large and burgeoning middle class, social mobility, education spreading downwards, and the US finally enjoining the enlightenment it supposedly espoused by making racism a crime, all while unions had more strength than "capitalists" might like.

Things never became perfect, but it's pretty obvious what the trend has been since 1980 and it is building presures within this society I hope will be released by moving back to the center rather than exploding into conflict.

In that sense the Democratic Party has made a good start which only precisely the people we should be wary of can complain.

janitors? Please. We don't have Janitors anymore - it's Environmental Services. Their job description didn't change - they still clean the lab - but their job title did a few years back.

That change happened about the time they busted the unions, and MRSA infections took off...

PS:

And Wolf...

I won't any questions about my daughter being a faggot.

I meant:

"As already covered in prior threads..." not "prior posts"

Methinks thou needs to learn the definition of the -ism's you are so fond of bandying, Hawk.

Doesn't Kaus have better things to blog about? Like defending Anne Coulter? Or attacking "faggots?" Why does anyone pay attention to him again?

American Hahahahaha:

Tell me how often workers are involved in discussions before the pink slips go out.

---
Why does one sign get to campaign and not the other?
---

You're right; to even things up, I suggest allowing the unions to fire anyone in corporate management that interferes with the vote.

95 percent of the time I agree with you, but you're out of touch with the needs of the small businessman. Just as you showed no sympathy when a mentally disturbed ex-employee was able to extort a six figure settlement out of my company (Cheaper to settle than spend all the $$$ it takes to win). What you're saying is if half my employees want a union, I have to give it to them? You're essentially greenlighting a hostile takeover. C'mon Kevin!

Ohmuhgosh. From January 1993 to January 1995, Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and American capitalism was just crippled by leftism. Why, you could hardly start a business without the gubmint shutting you down in a flurry of over-regulation. Well, on on planet Limbaugh, maybe, but not here on earth. I don't know even one socially liberal peacenik voter that worries about harmful effects of a Democratic resurgence.

I keep telling people this, but it doesn't seem to sink in with my rightwing friends. If you read history, there is one constant that repeats itself over and over again. From late 19th century France to early 20th century Russia to the end of the Soviet Union, if a society's working and middle classes lose economic contact with its rich there will be a rebalancing, usually with a bunch of newly revolutionary class standing on the bodies of the old elite. Unions and similar mechanisms that force the monied elite pay a fair wage for labor are necessary if the elite wants to keep its collective head. You can gussy it up with all the fancy social contract words you want but what a strong and effective union movement does for a country is help to avoid real class warfare--the kind of class warfare a country's elite can't win.

"Early 19th century France" and "a bunch of members of the new revolutionary class." Sometimes my fingers disconnect from my brain. No jokes.

Er late 18th Century. I can't remember. I was too busy eating cake.

Why do these people always think the American way of life is so fragile?

Remind me again how Kaus is a Democrat?

Ron, late 18th century?

And I won't. Same problem here.

And you can go further back than that. My background being British, from the Magna Carta on, a lot of the little and large rebellions and civil wars were based on the same imbalance, an overconfidence of a minority to repress.

In the US it has tended to be more localized and the suppressed revolts of workers, etc.

obscure >"Transparency. All compensation, private or public, must be made available for public scrutiny if you want to do business in America..."

This would seed the solution(s) to so many other social "problems" that it should be placed deep in the core of every legal system everywhere.

If you would be ashamed of what you are doing being on the 24/7/365 news (noise ?) machine`s agenda then don`t do it.

Period

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist. " - Archbishop Helder Camara

Workers need unions, but even better would be legally mandated claim on getting back more of their work output. That means, for example not just minimum wage laws, but conditions on lowest versus average pay, profit margin limits the excess of which must be refunded to employees, etc. We have legal right to do it because corporations are artificial legal persons, that we can put conditions on to purchase recognition.

That's as fair as the union not knowing until after the vote. Why does one sign get to campaign and not the other?

Awwwww... the poor big megacorporations!

Go fuck yourself.

What you're saying is if half my employees want a union, I have to give it to them?

Maybe you should pay better.

There's no "right" to being a successful businessman. Maybe you just can't cut it.

---
Maybe you should pay better.
---

I'm a liberal, but I think a little compassion is in order for small business.

If you'd like to see how strong union protections affect an economy as a whole, look at France or Germany. Those countries have much more labor participation in management decisions (to the point where you get comparisons of "shareholder" vs. "stakeholder" run companies). They generally have a higher level of benefits and more worker protection.

They also have much more unemployment, and lower levels of growth, than the US. The workers get a bigger share, but the pie is smaller. Sweden in the last 40 years may prove an instructive example.

You might look at it and decide it's worth the cost, but don't pretend there isn't a cost, or that there's no examples of what those costs are...

This is another of those discussions that strike me as soon-to-be irrelevant. In the limited world of the US economy, of course unions are necessary to protect workers' rights! In the broader world of globalization, it may be too late for workers to have much of a voice when they're competing with gazillions of workers offshore who are willing to work for $10/day or less. The global capitalistic system is set up to take advantage of the poor and disregard sustainability, human rights and environmental degradation.

"Some suggest that the industrialized nations need to drastically change their consumption patterns that are currently seen, as this is depleting resources more than the demands from large populations as seen in many developing nations.

Even the 1998 Human Development Report from the United Nations politely suggested similar things: Today's consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating. If the trends continue without change - not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not promoting goods that empower poor producers, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs-today's problems of consumption and human development will worsen.

... The real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.

... Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures - the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth:

Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%.
Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%.
Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%.
Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%.
Own 87% of the world's vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%.
Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.

— Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) — Emphasis Added

More info here.

nitpicker >"Why do these people always think the American way of life is so fragile?"

Because THEIR version of the American way of life IS very, very fragile & they realize guillotine blades can be very sharp.

When the majority becomes hip to how things are actually functioning (as opposed to the smoke & mirrors version - "tinkle down" for instance), the American way of life changes to a more equitable one & those folks selfish greed version becomes more difficult to get away with.

"The first lesson of democracy is not to hold the public in contempt." - Ronnie Earle

if unions are so bad, why doesn't anybody bitch about the unions for major league baseball players, NFL players, the screen actors guild, etc.? these unions all have guaranteed minimums, raises based on seniority and experience, clearly defined work and avenues to address grievances. my guess is because they are populated by sports stars & movie stars. but try to organize janitors or farm workers and people go ape-shit and start throwing words around like "communist". are sports stars and movie stars communists? no, they are talented american workers with real negotiating power who finally banded together to improve their lot against a cartel of owners that tried to keep them down. explain to me how that is different than any other occupational workforce in the united states?

Ah, Kevin.

So Kevin DUMB thinks we should pay janitors $10 an hour. It's not for you to decide, bucko. The market determines wages, and if you want to start setting wages at certain levels for certain job types, then the resulting byzantine morass of regulations is certain to send our economy hurtling back to the Stone Age.

THis is socialism your espousing, Kevin. Remember 1989?

I tremble for my country.

Companies can't retaliate against workers for how they vote in a union election? When Walmart opened butcher sections in their stores. When one store's butchers voted to unionize, Walmart closed all their butcher sections. Explode another myth...

As for calculating "unemployment" levels, the homeless in these United States aren't "unemployed" and neither are welfare recipients. Unless European countries calculate their "unemployment" numbers with similar methods, comparisons are meaningless.

That said, there is much merit to anonymous elections, if only to avoid retaliation from either side as well as hard feelings among the co-workers.

---
I tremble for my country.
---

Jeez, what a drama queen.

First: Kaus likes to talk like he is Democrat (and give advice to Democrats) - but he is a Republican shill (he loves Bush judges, Gonzalez, thinks Plame never was undercover and loves the surge) - his only issue is Immigration (keep dem ferriners out, now that I am in, 'cus we is special and got here first!).

Second: From Reagan on (except for Clinton), unions have had less power in America. The average CEO is making about 400X the average worker. CEO's all over are selling out "their" companies for great severance packages - essentially, selling their souls and all of the workers jobs to the highest bidder. We need to bring some sanity back to this - capitalism run amok has shown to be detrimental before... ever heard of the robber barons? The Enron affair and other corporate roberies have bankrupted the workewrs pensions. Average wages have stagnated - but workers are paying more for healthcare and getting less for pensions and retirement. It is time to readjust the CEO gap.

"better institutions...that offer workers the same degree of bargaining power that unions provide,"

The naivette is quite charming I must say.

As if the guys like Kaus have any interest in offering workers any bargaining power.

Egghead, we have no reason to believe that you can define either byzantine or morass based on some of your grander blunders *hear* - perhaps you should abstain. The steaks are simply too high.

egbert >"...I tremble for my country."

Come in out of the cold then. Even dogs know enough to do that.

*Sheesh*, what a dim bulb

"...you cannot save your face and your ass at the same time..." - vachon@shadrach

"The only thing that's succeeded in raising median male wages even a little bit was the late-90s dotcom boom, and I don't think that's something we can count on replicating."

Actually, that can be replicated. All you have to do is look WHY it happened.

Money went into real investment in new businesses, and that money went into things that improve the real economy, like wages for labor, fixtures, which have to be made, and sold..which makes more jobs, etc.

All we have to do is figure out how to redirect money from the speculative market, which is a return on already invested money, and instead on new investments, preferably ones with a substantial economic output. Tax law would probably be a good way to achieve this, increase taxes on speculative investment, and give a tax break for young, high output companies.

Peaceniks? That's Kaus's term for all the people who've tried to keep the administration from plunging us headlong into this epochal foreign policy disaster?

Does he think he's being cute? Does he think he can still cling to sad, out-of-date slurs like 'peaceniks' in the face of what the judgment of history has in store for him?

>>The market determines wages

The last time I checked, we already had a minimum wage in this country. I guess we live in a socialist state already.

I tremble at your stupidity.

The ruling class does not want unions because unions are effective. They are effective with wages and working conditions and they are effective with balancing political power. The ruling class will do anything to prevent a resurgence of unions.

---
It's impossible to run many businesses profitably if it's impossible to fire bad workers
---

Some people are so bad at their jobs that companies pay them tens of millions of dollars to leave.

I'm willing to inflict that punishment on the average worker.

Modern American Republicanism:
Have as many kids as you can.
But don't expect us to let them participate in our economy.

Nothing less than virtual slavery will satisfy the right. No hyperbole intended.

"In any case, the underlying question, I think, is whether you believe that workers have too little bargaining power these days, thus leading to stagnant median wages."

The best bargaining power you can have stems from a strong economy and tight job market. Want higher wages? Get another job, or at least threaten to.

Dave said: "Perhaps you should pay better".

Perhaps you should stick it. My company does 80 percent residential, 20 percent commercial. We pay much better than the residential union and almost as well as the commercial union. Oh yeah, most of our benefits are superior as well. By being independent, I'm able to shift guys back and forth between residential and commercial and keep them busy all year (Something that most union shops cannot do). If we were residential union, most of my guys would take pay cuts. If we were commercial, I'd have to give up 80 percent of my work. Sure some shops have both classifications, but those that do have ongoing resentment issues.

I'm not a union basher. I just want to be able to run business my way. There's also that thing called a free market. If my guys have it poorly, they can always head down to the union hall. They don't. And regardless of the quality of a company, the gubberment has no right to compell it to be union.

And as for the comment about the small rise in adjusted median wages for males since 1970, well the wages for females doubled in that period.

So is it a lack of unions and minimum wages, or more competition in the workforce?

It seems you should pin down the reason for slow-rising males wages before handing the problem over to the buffoons in Congress.

Orson you dumb fuck -- I tremble for your stupidity. "The market determines wages" -- reductionist bullshit from someone with the sophstication of a 7th grader. So when the CEO of United Health Care walks away with a billion in stock it's because he's worth that. C'mon.

As for Kaus, let me say it again -- he's a union busting piece of crap who should have been written out of the respectabe liberal community a long, long time ago.

Card check is necessary because employers break the law all the damn time with no consequences. I have represented unions for a living for two decades and I assure you that labor laws are totally impotent in the face of employer intransigence.

As for the value of unions, examine growth rates from 1946-1966, the peak of union membership in America, look at wage growth during that time, and the level of inequality in the economy compared to today. Then tell me that unions are incompatible with economic expansion.

Kevin:
Between you and Andrew Sullivan, this somehow turned into 'Take Mickey Kaus Seriously Day' in the blogosphere. How'd that happen -- and really, is there any reason why we shouldn't just stop?

---
It seems you should pin down the reason for slow-rising males wages
---

For the compensation gap to narrow, median wages would have to rise faster than CEO pay and outpace inflation.

Any idea how the fed has reacted in the past to general wages rising faster than inflation?

CEO pay goes up, everything's hunky dory. Rank and file wages go up... Houston, we have a problem.

Orson,

I apologize -- bad reading comprehension and too much wine.

More thought before posting.

Egbert appears to be the market worshipping fool.

Kaus remains beneath contempt.

---
If you're gonnna tar all conservatives with Coulter, then I tar all of you with the ACLU pervert
---

I must have missed the part where the liberals erupted in applause over this guy.

In contrast, you might have noticed that Coulter got a pretty good round of applause by Republican fatcats at the end of her comment.

Kreb,

You lie, lie, lie.

I have been working with construction unions my entire adult life and a non-union residential contractor who gives better benefits - I don't fucking think so. Tell me what you provide -- free family health care coverage, a defined benefit pension plan that lets someone retire at 55 at a respectabe rate of income replacement, a defined contributin plan to supplement that. I seriously doubt it.

Gee whiz, krabs. If your workers are as happy as you say they are, why would half of them vote to unionize? Your story stinks like you pulled it out of the place you stick because the sun don't shine there. And somebody pluck that fucking American chicken.

Kaus isn't really about ideology. He probably isn't a crypto-wingnut. What he has is a gag reflex which rears itself at the thought of any and all traditional Democratic constituencies: blacks, immigrants, gays, government employees, labor unions, feminists, antiwar activists.

He tends to romanticize Sun Belt white proles, but that's only because he's never met one. If he lived among them, they would make him sick too.

If Kaus lived among white sunbelt proles they'd string his ass up.

Okay, I'm trying to determine if that's a problem

"If you're gonnna tar all conservatives with Coulter, then I tar all of you with the ACLU pervert"

What ACLU pervert, you ignorant fucktard? The only perverts I read about are conservatards. The ACLU case was about freedom of speech, like when they represented the Nazis at Skokie. Then they went to bat for fatso limpballs, the oxycontin cowboy. That was about privacy. Even fat perverts deserve some privacy.

Micky Kaus sleeps in Batman Underoos.

Amerigo's chickenhawk: It's impossible to run many businesses profitably if it's impossible to fire bad workers.

Does this apply in government? Can we just fire Bush?

Ultimately what I pay doesn't matter to my point(What I have said about my company is 100 percent true btw.) I'm just saying that NO COMPANY, regardless of virtue or vice should be forced to go union.

A union should have enough benefits to stand on its own. In my area (The SF bay region) the commercial union is almost non-existent because they pay so poorly (I can only think of two residential union shops) While the commercial union does very nicely with large commercial and public works projects. If I don't treat my workers well, they leave me. Capiche?

If businesses are irresponsible exploiters of labor, their workers leave. Why is that so difficult to understand? A company who treats its workers like shit ends up with shit workers and a shit product, and if they are competitive at all in the market they occupy the bottom rungs. So be it. You'll always have bottom feeders, but if they follow the laws what right do you have to dictate how to run their business.

Kreb,

I represent a building trades union in San
Francisco that does both commercial and some residential work. It has an hourly package of over $50 an hour, including benefits of over $15 an hour. Are you really claiming that you do better than that?

Unions also spend a huge amount of money training people to learn the trade. They give back to their industries. Most of the non-union employers I see are in fact true bottom feeders, using illegals, phony subcontractors and the like to make their profits. How about you?

Klein Nut: This is interesting. Could you tell me what Atlas Oakland's residential scale is? How about the production workers union or the service techincians rate? My journeymen make at least $32/hr plus 100 percent of a very good kaiser plan for the individual and 1/2 of their dependents, plus dental, vision, vacation, hollidays, 401K, tool and education funds. It gets them well into the 40s. Is it as much as your commercial scale? No. but we don't differentiate between worker classes. The top residential, commercial, welder, service and production rates are the same.

I think that we share a commitment to taking good care of workers. We're natural allies. Where we differ is in the assertion that workers should be able to force their employer to unionize. Market forces take care of that without the socialist state.

Alternative, restrict immigration particularly of unskilled labor. Naturally unkilled wages aren't going to rise much if companies can import unskilled labor from all over the world.

Oh by the way, I've NEVER screwed with the union. I wish that the guys from Delucci Sheet Metal showed the same restraint when they slashed my tires for having the temerity to take a job a couple blocks away from their shop.

I'm late to this party but:

"Why do these people always think the American way of life is so fragile?

Posted by: nitpicker on March 4 .."

The 'American way of life' is fragile.

Just one example is the last quarter of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century. Inequality was completely out of hand. The industrial revolution had turned most Americans into employees. A large percentage of workers didn't even make subsistance wages. Whole families, mother, father and children had to work in order to survive in what amounted to squalor. Independent farmers were being raked over the coals by large corporations, particularly the railroads. In short, Americans were being turned into peasants and workers with neither sustenance nor hope. Labor unions, such as they were, were weak and often under assault by government at all levels. That ain't exactly the American model. Because of this environment the populist and the progressive movements emerged.

Start learning about your country by reading 'The Growth of the American Republic' BOTH volumes. It's only a start, but, many making comments here could use it.

Does he think he's being cute? Does he think he can still cling to sad, out-of-date slurs like 'peaceniks' in the face of what the judgment of history has in store for him?

Kaus's next column: this "acid rock" music that kids listen to these days is awfully loud.

…What you're saying is if half my employees want a union, I have to give it to them… kreb at 8:39 PM

…a little compassion is in order for small business. eightnine2718281828mu5 at 9:17 PM

…You might look at it and decide it's worth the cost…Avatar at 9:18 PM

Kaus likes to talk like he is Democrat …correctnotright at 9:32 PM

… workers should be able to force their employer to unionize. Market forces take care of that without the socialist state.kreb at 11:26 PM

cost push inflation..

Well, Kev, some four hours have passed and I don't see any "feasible real-world proposals for 'better institutions...that offer workers the same degree of bargaining power that unions provide...'"

Can you and I agree that even posing this question concedes rather too much to the right wing? Sort of like, "Social security is so 1930s; it might have worked well in its heyday, but 70 years on we need 'better old age insurance instituitions...that offer workers the same degree of retirement security that social security once provided..."

You can run the same script about medicare, "deregulating" the airwaves, and all those other passe New Deal/Great Society programs that cause so much woe today.

This is a very slippery slope towards defeat - when we fundamentally agree with our adversaries on the definition of the problem, the limitation on solutions has already occurred.

eightnine2718281828mu5 >"...I'm willing to inflict that punishment on the average worker."

Yea, sign me up for that punishment posthaste.

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevel

I blame it all on middle management.

pretend DINO

Double negative alert.

I propose a League of Sole Proprietors.

We can then hire and fire our middle management.

Someone said: "Unions can bully somebody into supporting unions with threats of violent retaliation, something corporations don't do."

Someone's laughably ignorant of the history of labor in the US, aren't they? Perhaps someone should do some research. And maybe start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Road_Massacre

People have fought and died in the US for labor rights, and US corporations have threatened and killed US laborers who wanted to unionize. Regardless of your views on the matter, those are facts.

Sweden 1965-2005 per capita GDP average yearly increase: 1.92%

U.S.: 2.17%

A total of about $5,000 difference over the 40 years.

And they live longer, have better medical benefits and more vacation.

So, Avatar, is it worth the costs?

I think that Thoma could rephrase his question
to "We already know how [US] unions [have] worked, pretty much, but can we [they] do better?

Unions in different countries are very different. US unions have always been characterised by relatively low membership, high dues and rich strike funds, and complete independence of each union from the AFL-CIO. The US has an extraordinarily high wage differential between unionized and un-unionized workers. Unions in some other countries aim for universal membership (in Sweden there are more union members than workers). There they act like an interest group aiming to represent the interests of workers (a very unspecial interest group).

Consider the case of Robert Barro. I think it is safe to say he is not a pinko. Soon after moving from Rochester to Harvard, he wrote a paper on employment protection laws (restrictions on firing) and the duration of fluctuations in unemployment. In this paper, he distinguished between US type unions and "neocorporativist" unions. He said he gave the paper in Rochester and someone said "three months at Harvard and you are talking like a sociologist."

Unions can do three things, they can strike, they can lobby and they can provide services to their members. To have effective strikes, unions need money in the strike fund. To lobby, they need mass membership. In the USA public sector workers are much more likely to be unionised than private sector workers. Often they are not allowed to strike. Still the unions are powerful, because they represent blocks of voters. I personally think US unions should focus on political activism (getting the votes out for Democrats). I believe that this way they would help their members and help non members too (including, I might add, and in my partisan opinion, shareholders).

I wrote two things above, then corrected myself. I thought of direct services. The vast majority of Americans love social security. Who came up with the idea ? His name was Ferdinand Lassalle and he was a German union organiser. Bismark decided not to let the unions keep all the credit for such a great product. Lassalle was a Jew who had a huge mass following in Germany. I think he was on to something.

So how about this. Why don't unions provide health insurance to their members ? They are large groups and don't have adverse selection problems. Workers do not have to be expelled from the union when they are laid off. I think part of the problem is that unions make firms provide health insurance, so uninsured unionised workers are rare (also can you spell nue Heimat ? I thought you couldn't).

I'm mightily interested in feasible real-world proposals for "better institutions...that offer workers the same degree of bargaining power that unions provide," but what are they?

Card-check union representation IS that "better institution". One of the main complaints about unions is that they require too intensive a commitment of time and politicking on the part of members, and too exclusive a self-definition as a worker in a particular profession, to suit the harried and multiple-identitied modern worker. The card-check system is one way of getting over such organizational hurdles. It's more suited to the way people sign up for things these days. This IS the "new way of thinking" that all these people are calling for.

It's time to bring back the labor unions and with it, teach our government a thing or two about the power of people sing as how our Washington congressinal members can't straighten out their toxic love affair for K-Street.

I'm tired of corporate lackyies telling me that we must compete in a global markets and yet fail time and again to show even one example of how this is truth because certainly we've seen the examples of outsourceing, and it really is axing apart the middle class of American into non-existance. Sure it creates jobs, in the service industry, at Wal-Mart and call centers, places whereby nobody can make a decent living.

The reckless and foolish economic policies of the Bush Administration are coming home to roost. BEWARE OF A STOCK AND CURRENCY MARKET MELTDOWN THIS WEEK!!!

It's not just "worker's rights" or "labor" issues; the fundamental, bottom-line problem is that ALL Americans are more in danger of losing their lives, as well as their livelihoods, from this administration's nightmarish political vision. What happens to "worker's rights" is what happens to the health and safety of all Americans. The recent outbreaks of salmonella and e-coli poisoning is just a tiny example. Bush is endangering all Americans with these policies:

Go here: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/bushwatch/

Click to view: Show All of Bush's actions since 2001

Read through each of Bush/GOP assaults on "worker's rights" and consider how it affects you when these protections are dismantled.

Kevin presumes that workers' salaries will be kept low unless the workers are protected by a union. But, our actual life experience belies that idea. My wife, my children, my siblings and I all had decent incomes even though our jobs weren't unionized. I'd guess that Kevin himself makes a decent income without being in a union.

It may not be easy to understand why non-unionized workers aren't all paid rock-bottom wages, but actual results in America shows that without union wages do rise to appropriate levels.

Thanks to "ex-liberal" for our morning's cup of intellectual dishonesty.

Of course, the neocon toad "ex-liberal"'s hostility toward unions is yet more evidence proving his/her/its handle is a lie, like all the rest of his/her/its posts.

Why do you bother, "ex-liberal"?

One man, one vote, one time? Pretty much.
Eliminate mandatory union membership, where a member can quit an unsatisfactory union and not lose her job then I will not object to procedural changes. As long as the individual has no choice, then the secret ballot is vital.

Frequency Kenneth should actually read the bloody bill, which doesn't ban elections and secret ballots or strike the provisions allowing them. It ADDS an option whereby a majority may petition for Card Check.

`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

Kreb brought up the subject of construction. He says he pays ALMOST as well as union companies on commercial work. (He left out the subject of benefits, though) It sounds like he is bidding against mostly union companies. I think if there were no union in that labor market he would be bidding against contracting companies who pay substantially lower, and he wouldn't be able to pay what he is paying now. So the union is improving the pay for his guys, who don't even belong to it.

It is not the 1950's. I don’t think simple unionization will deal with systemic problems like anemic job creation and stagnant wages brought on by global labor arbitrage. If anything US workers can expect less and less even with unions. More people will compete for the few non-mobile jobs that are left. The central program of the conservative authoritarian movement is to undermine risk-sharing in all its forms. This will not help the situation for 95% of American workers.

Globalization and the powerful cross-border labor arbitrage it has spawned has turned the US labor market inside out. The manufacturing share of US employment hit another record low as 2005 came to an end -- down to 10.6% of total nonfarm payrolls, or about one-third the share prevailing as recently as 1970. At the same time, employment and compensation is being squeezed in services as well, where offshore outsourcing is moving rapidly up the value chain. The speed of this transformation is what’s so daunting. Just five years ago, white collar outsourcing was confined to data processing and call centers; today, courtesy of IT-enabled connectivity, it has moved to the upper echelons of the knowledge-worker hierarchy -- software programming, engineering, design, doctors, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, business consultants, and financial analysts. The Internet is living up to its reputation of being the most disruptive technology in the history of the world.

The implications of these developments are profound. Long lacking in income support, the spending-addicted American consumer has turned to equity extraction from asset holdings in order to support the habit. According to Federal Reserve estimates, the current pace of home equity extraction was around $600 billion in 2005 -- more than enough to compensate for the $335 billion shortfall of real labor income generation noted above. But if the housing market softens and financing costs rise -- both quite likely, in my view -- equity extraction will fade and over-extended American consumers will then have little choice other than to bring spending and saving back into more prudent alignment with income.

That underscores the potential for a long-deferred and important transition in the US -- away from the newfound joys of the Asset Economy back to the Income Economy of yesteryear. Such a transition undoubtedly spells slower consumption and real GDP growth over the foreseeable future -- a downshift that may already have triggered a slowing in the underlying pace of hiring over the past four months. In that context, further tightening would most likely be out for a deflation-phobic Bernanke Fed, bonds should rally, stocks could be hit by an earnings shortfall, and the dollar will likely fall further. Only a spontaneous and powerful regeneration of labor income would allow the US economy to avoid such an endgame -- an outcome that would imply nothing short of an unwinding of the global labor arbitrage. Barring a dangerous outbreak of protectionism, such a reversal is highly unlikely, in my view.

The End of Labor
Stephen Roach
January 09, 2006

Kevin presumes that workers' salaries will be kept low unless the workers are protected by a union. But, our actual life experience belies that idea. My wife, my children, my siblings and I all had decent incomes even though our jobs weren't unionized. I'd guess that Kevin himself makes a decent income without being in a union.

Why, that's completely true! To use another example, I'm not in a union (I work as a corporate attorney on Wall Street), and yet I make hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the janitor who cleans my office every night, who is in a union. The only possible conclusion is that unions don't work.....

*sigh* Sometimes the stupid is so bad it hurts.

*sigh* Sometimes the stupid is so bad it hurts.

I sometimes wonder if "ex-liberal" is aware that every time he/she/it posts such a fallacy-ridden piece of reactionary bullshit, he/she/it discredits him/her/itself and the neocon/conservative movement itself?

Somewhere there are forums where intelligent, honest conservatives post compelling arguments in good faith.

It isn't here. "ex-liberal", Mike K, Cut-n-Run Jay, and their ilk are the best we can do. And all of the above have demonstrated, time and again, that they're absolutely impervious to information -- no matter how many times they're schooled, they're right back posting the same old bullshit.

Why, it almost makes one imagine that posting GOP/neocon talking points was thir job or something. That, or they're total idiots.

Quote:

"So the union is improving the pay for his guys, who don't even belong to it."

This is correct. If you look at "right to work" states like Arizona where there are no prevailing wage laws, the overall construction compensation is very low, and construction unions are weak.

That said, forcing shops to go union is still wrong. My interpretaion of social darwinism is that companies who treat their employees poorly will perform poorly and tend to limp along or die altogether. Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera.

Somewhere there are forums where intelligent, honest conservatives post compelling arguments in good faith.

That would presume, I suppose, that there are intelligent, honest, compelling conservative arguments that can be made in good faith....

Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera.

Yeah, because when you're submitting competative bids, having higher labor costs is always and advantage.

Faith-based conservatism strikes again.

Perhaps we should do the same thing for all elections. Let the politicians bring around cards to be signed. Then the one with the most signitures could be President, Next most vice president then next most would be senators and next most representatives. Then when all the voting is done you could check the cards to see who didn't vote for you and apply extra persuasion for the next election.

Robert Waldman,

Unfortunately there are huge legal obstacles to offering health insurance on the basis of union membership. I've tried to do this on the basis of associate union membership and you run into various issues under state insurance law that make it much more difficult than you might imagine. The building trades unions do in effect have insurance and pensions that revolve around the union (although by law management representatives have to have equal representation in administering these plans) because members work for multiple employers. In other industries though the employer based model has predominated.

Walter Wallis,

The idea that you can quit a union that by law must represent you is the lousy idea behind so-called right to work laws. These laws undermine unions and reward free riders who can benefit fully from everything that a union negotiates, but pay no part of the costs associated with providing such representation. This has all but killed unions in the southern U.S. I work with a union that recently organized a plant in Georgia. They won an election and actually managed to negotiate a first contract (a hard thing to do in the U.S.). However, only about a third of the employees who benefitted by the contract then joined the union. So essentially the union loses money on the deal -- I know unions aren't in business to make money, but it's hard to provide representation while not being able to pay for the salaries,legal work, etc. necessary to do so.

Both right to work laws and the legal provision that management has to have an equal say in running union benefit plans were part of the Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947 over Truman's veto. (Whenver conservatives try to claim Truman I want to puke). The law was designed to greatly reduce union power, which it has done, much to the detriment of America's working class. Some day white southern men may actually figure this out.

That would presume, I suppose, that there are intelligent, honest, compelling conservative arguments that can be made in good faith

Scant evidence of that around here, it's true. And as you know, Stefan, I've been contending for some time that there's no honest means of defending the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Bush Administration, and his apologists from tbrosz on forward have just kept proving me right.

That said, forcing shops to go union is still wrong. My interpretaion of social darwinism is that companies who treat their employees poorly will perform poorly and tend to limp along or die altogether. Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera.

Uh, your interpretation of "social darwinism" (which is actually a rather discredited theory having little to do with Darwinism proper) is rather at odds with business fact. Indeed, many companies do quite well precisely because they treat their employees poorly and then pass along the savings to their shareholders and/or customers. High labor costs are traditionally a drag on profits, which is one reason that so many US companies have outsourced their jobs to low-paying and oppressive Third World sweatshops.

Wal-Mart, for one, is merely the largest and most obvious example of a company that makes billions in profit while forcing its employees to go without health insurance and, in many cases, paying so little that they are actually forced to go on public assistance even while working.

Remember, there are two parts to the economic equation, capital (money) and labor (men). We allow, and even encourage, capital to agglomerate in the form of corporations, and yet we actively discourage labor from organizing in the form of unions. The end result of such a system is to privilege money over men.

Kreb's quaint optimism about the workings of the market is charming. "Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera."

This reminds me of the yiddish saying, "God will provide...if only God would provide until God provides!"

Fortunately the NLRA (despite its myriad weaknesses) doesn't trust in God, the market, or enlightened employers, but provides workers a means, however circumscribed, of protecting their own interests.

Here Kreb makes one of the more radical suggestions of the thread, but nonetheless welcome. Rather than dressing up his comments in pseudo-democratic rhetoric about the sanctity of the secret ballot, he not only rejects Card Check, but comes out firmly against recognition elections under which a bargaining unit may be certified WHETHER OR NOT the employer wants it.

No bloody union is going to tell Kreb what to do with his employees unless he agrees!

Its nice to see an honest argument.

Alas, the employer class gains great mileage out of an NLRB that appears to offer union rights but in practice does no such thing. So Kreb's revisions won't occur; then again, they don't really need to!

Unions can bully somebody into supporting unions with threats of violent retaliation, something corporations don't do.

Except that this is a canard. Research reports vastly higher rates of corporate threats and coercion in union votes, than of union threats and coercion.

Threrats of violence, which will usually get the threatener brought up on criminal charges, are vanishingly rare. In any case, they are not as effective as threats to fire or otherwise punish pro-union employees, which are extremely common (occurring in over a third of unionization drives) and much more immediate and effective.

stefan -- Glad to hear you're doing so well. A professional society can be even better than a union. :-)

But, let's take your example -- the non-union janitors at your firm. Are they paid minimum wage with no fringe benefits? I'd guess not. The employers of these janitors likely pay them more than is legally necessary and give them fringe benefits that are not legally necessary, even though the janitors don't have a union. This is an example of how workers' remuneration rises regardless of whether they have a union.

What do you know about children, mhr, besides the fact they sexually arouse you, you sick pervert?

"ex-liberal" wrote: A professional society can be even better than a union

And wingnut welfare programs like AEI and PNAC even better still, right, "ex-liberal"?

My wife, my children, my siblings and I all had decent incomes even though our jobs weren't unionized. I'd guess that Kevin himself makes a decent income without being in a union.

worthless anecdote? check

It may not be easy to understand why non-unionized workers aren't all paid rock-bottom wages, but actual results in America shows that without union wages do rise to appropriate levels.

unsourced bullshit assertion? check

another worthless bullshit post by a mindless troll? triple check

Ex-Liberal,

Your willingness to opine about things of which you know not continues. A non-union janitor in the DC area typically makes about $7.00 an hour with no or minimal benefits. A union janitor will get $10-$12 an hour, plus health and some modest pension benefits. Not great, but a whole lot different than his non-union counterpart who is living below the poverty line here.

And you people claim to honor work.

But, let's take your example -- the non-union janitors at your firm.

Learn to read. I said they do have a union.

The employers of these janitors likely pay them more than is legally necessary and give them fringe benefits that are not legally necessary, even though the janitors don't have a union. This is an example of how workers' remuneration rises regardless of whether they have a union.

Assuming arguendo that we're talking about non-unionized janitors, that remuneration would be less than other, similarly situated workers who are in a union receive. It's not a question of whether someone is paid more than the legal minimum, but whether someone would be paid more or less if he was in a union or not. Unionized workers almost always are paid more than non-unionized workers, which is precisely why employers oppose unions.

mhr

Your comments don't so much reflect on the need or lack of need for unions as much as how management deals with them. There should always be a tension between unions and management. Teachers unions are no different.

As to the standard Republican rant aspects of your comment, please provide data showiing that teachers unions are too powerful. I don't want isolated examples I want real data. Then I want you to tell us what we should do to address the problems you uncover.

For too long we have all been held hostage to the standard right wing argument that can be summed up as follows: "There is a problem with ********* institution. Lets do away with ********* institution."

The better response might be to improve the institution. In the case of overly powerful unions, hiring stronger management and electing tough minded school board members might be a better solution.

Who would ever have thought that US public schools could have sunk to their present level? The reason is largely that teacher unions exist first and foremost to protect teachers and their tenure, that is, the right to a job for life, to their substantial health benefits and a generous pension system.

My god, the horror. A professional association that works to protect its members' compensation, benefits and working conditions! What a terrible conflict of interest...isn't it?

For liberals ideology trumps everything including the welfare of children.

Which is why children in public schools in non-unionized Mississippi and Alabama do so much better than children in heavily unionized New York and Massachusetts....

Stefan, I agree that unionized workers are generally paid more than non-union workers. However, unions burden an organization in more ways than getting higher pay. Read Kevin's Mickey Kaus cite. Unions impose work rules and procedures that cost the firm in efficiency and flexibility. That's why Toyota is replacing GM as the largest auto manufacturer. That's why America's growth industries are non-union.

The issue of flexibility is more important every day, as technology advances faster and faster. Inflexible organizations are unable to compete on the world market.

Is there no end to ex-liberal's fatuous arguments?

"Work rules and procedures"? The last 30 years have been about increasing flexibility and relaxing said rules. And GM and Ford are still having problems, though these have more to do with pension and healthcare obligations, which if we had anything like the social welfare provisions of virtually every OECD country on earth, would not be borne by companies. Though ex-liberal opposes these, too.

Flexibility? Seems to be the basic condition of unionized car companies in Europe, which notwithstanding ups and downs, have done pretty damn good over the last 30 years.

Flexibility? You can make far too much out of this. God knows there are a few Enron investors and former employees who would have preferred a little less flexibility in corporate management and a little more independent oversight of the pension and benefit schemes. And that's just for starters - the list is very long!

Shorter "ex-liberal": Sweatshops rule!

Is there no end to ex-liberal's fatuous arguments?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

My interpretaion of social darwinism is that companies who treat their employees poorly will perform poorly and tend to limp along or die altogether. Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera.

Yeah, my interpretation of social darwinism is that everyone will always be nice and honest in order to gain a respectable reputation in society and benefit from mutual exchange and cooperation with their fellows, hence eliminating violence, adultery, and TV remote-hogging. Thus, everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Of course there may be exceptions to this rule -- the Nazis, and what have you -- but these are merely temporary deviations.

Threrats of violence, which will usually get the threatener brought up on criminal charges, are vanishingly rare. - craigers

Yeah, but I saw this movie once where it happened. Hence q.e.d., ergo.

"It isn't here. "ex-liberal", Mike K, Cut-n-Run Jay, and their ilk are the best we can do."

Kevin's blog used to be well-known as a place where honest discussion between liberals and conservatives could be found. Unfortunately, the best of those conservatives all left to found their own blogs or to join conservative sites like redstate.org. What we are left with is the trolls and the dregs.

"My interpretaion of social darwinism is that companies who treat their employees poorly will perform poorly and tend to limp along or die altogether. Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera."

Wal-Mart. Q.E.D.

That said, forcing shops to go union is still wrong. My interpretaion of social darwinism is that companies who treat their employees poorly will perform poorly and tend to limp along or die altogether. Those who take care of their guys perform the best, get the best jobs, are the most productive, et cetera.

Posted by: Kreb on March 5, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Riiight. So, genius, address the issue of the Von's/Safeway strike of 2005. Any lessons learned there? Last I checked, all the g-stores were still in bidness making huge dollar while their employees get screwed.

Question:

If the guys in your shop did a secret ballot unionizing move, would you move to fire the organizers?

What we are left with is the trolls and the dregs.

As opposed to RedState.com? Jesus wept...

I love the way the Right screams when there's a tight labor market..
a) you never hear them complaining about the wages CEO and rest of the executive suite gets paid
b) They seem to think that gimmicking the economy for businesses is righteous, to do so for the workers is immoral

Somewhere there are forums where intelligent, honest conservatives post compelling arguments in good faith.

-Gregory

I have been to many conservative online forums and it is not there. You really have to search for fora where a conservative will honestly debate a person without the kneejerk talking points.

I don't have much else to say except IMO it's a mistake to paint everyone according to the abuses of the few. Liberals like to buy into these robber-baron stereotypes.

If a union was forced upon me I'd probably accept it, because A - The union has a lot to offer, and B - I've got too much invested in my company to walk away or try and reorganize. I doubt that this scenario will ever play, because most of my guys are fairly anti-union for a variety of reasons, and as I've stated before, they're treated pretty well.

Once in a while some of y'all would be well advised to pick up a copy of Atlas shrugged. Ayn Rand's arguements may be a bit silly if considered literally, but the woman does understand the importance of keeping your productive class motivated.

PaulB,

Kevin's comment sections have devolved for the same reasons others do. On left-wing blogs like this one (and I note the same thing happens on the right-wing blogs), left-wing trolls are largely encouraged to continue their activities. These activities include attacking anyone on the other side of the debate with ad hominems and childish antics. This is what drives many of the thoughtful commentators from the center to the right away, and, at the same time, the energy focussed on the true right-wing trolls only gives them what they want, which is attention and a pissing match. Kevin's comment sections are filled with this stuff, and it is getting worse by the day. Indeed, I hardly even read the comments any longer because it is getting more and more difficult to find any real debate, I just read Kevin's entries, and make a comment if I feel the need to do so.

If you want a better comments section, then the mature commentators must start taking their own trolls to task for their indiscriminate incivility, and they must thoroughly ignore the true right-wing trolls. If one cannot tell the difference between a troll and someone who simply has a different viewpoint, then lively, useful debate is going to be impossible. It is disheartening to read comments that encourage someone to take their different viewpoints somewhere where there are people who already agree with them. That isn't debate.

Shorter Yancey Ward: I demand a forum in which my loony libertarian faith is unchallenged!

For such a ruggedly individualistic guy, ol' Yancey has an awfully thin skin...

Here's a clue, Yancey: You seem to presume that you're a "thoughtful commentator" (then again, maybe not; after all, you are still here... I submit that this is an assertion not in evidence -- to the contrary, regulars who are familiar with your piss-poor debating skill, loony libertarian faith and vastly overinflated estimation of your own intelligence and integrity would disagree.

Besides, Yancey, you've been here a while, and while the scenario you describe may have occurred on ther blogs, it didn't happen here, and you know it. Even the Bush apologists who at least could debate honesty, like ol' tbrosz, chose not to. It may be impossible to defend the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption, but no one forced him to, and he, you, and the whole pack of you are quite rightly called on your bullshit -- "are you comfortable with Iran having a nuke (ROFL!) -- and you have no standing to demand respect you don't deserve.

Your revisionist attempt at history here just proves it.

But by all means stick around and demonstrate the bankruptcy of your philosophy -- it's endlessly entertaining.

Amen Yancey. If you want other people to keep their dogs under control you've got to keep your own dogs in line as well. The problem is, that'd be a full time job in and of itself.

By the by, isn't it interesting how the GOP apologists are defining "civility" as "doesn't cuss".

Accusations of a lakc of patriotism if not treason, sneering assertions of superiority, mindless repetition of groundless neocon talking points, imperviousness to data, straw man arguments beyond number, intellectual dishonesty of every sort, coming in here and pissing on the rug: Perfectly civil, as long as you don't cuss?

In a word: Bullshit.

Kreb,

It is not a full-time job, but if it is a job ignored, then this site is doomed to be just like Democratic Underground or FreeRepublic.

The comments here are so fucking hysterical (some of them literally)I thought I'd inadvertantly gone to The Onion's web site.

"Once in a while some of y'all would be well advised to pick up a copy of Atlas shrugged. Ayn Rand's arguements may be a bit silly if considered literally, but the woman does understand the importance of keeping your productive class motivated."

Krebs, do your employees realize that you don't consider them to be members of the "productive class?"

What you describe as "silly if considered literally" is what is essential in Rand's theory. If you haven't understood that yet I think it's you who needs to do some reading.

Enough with the links to Kaus on this page. You currently have 5 links to past posts of his on the left hand side, plus this link. What gives? Who cares about Kaus?!