Why do you(or anyone else) get to determine when a union isn't needed? Why shouldn't workers have the right to band together to get better salaries and benefits?

Interesting. Thanks for the link. That is definitely a different way to go about things, don't think that corporations would be too big of fans for it here though. :)

I agree that it should be free market on both sides...but then we should be letting them fail as well when they create unsustainable benefits that collapse their company or industry as a result of their negotiations.

The problem is that the information as to the true condition of companies is kept from the workers. That's why I favor the German model. I think workers are more likely to agree to sacrifices if they are a part of the decision making process. I know I'd be skeptical if the college president said we needed to fire ten percent of faculty but refused to show anyone real budget numbers.

My main beefs are their political force (as oppose to collectivicism) and using strike actions, and I agree with Wisconsin too.

I also agree with JPhillips on the model of Germany's co-determinism.

When you phrase it that way, sure the answer is simple. Lets talk about the cons (and pros) of unions.

Pick a union from one of my 3 examples and lets have the detailed discussion.

I don't see why a strike would be bad. They don't feel that the cost of their labor is appropriate, so why would they continue to work under it? People should be free to work for what they want to.

No, people should be free to able to sell their value in the labor force. That's not the same things as being able to demand compensation above minimum wage from one employer. I don't recall your line of work but I cannot (and should not) be able to tell my boss I want a raise and better benefits and then not show up for work until I get those.

Actually you should be able to. Just as your boss has the right to tell you that your services are no longer needed if you don't show up to work (or whenever they want). You determine what you are willing to take for your labor in a free market. If you decide one day that amount isn't suitable for you, there is nothing that says you have to show up to work.

Of course, taking my labor into the free market has been my point. That's still not the same thing as standing outside his/her door and not working until they meet my demands. That's unethical, imo. If they let me walk away then I should be terminated, that is their right - just it is my right to walk away (given notice). But also, they can hire me back, if they want and I should be able to apply for employment at the place I left (unless terminated for cause).

I don't know about a double dip.

Your model allows for a very strong downward pressure on compensation with no balancing upward pressure. What keeps wages from decreasing?

That's why I favor unionization. There needs to be a balancing force pressing upward on compensation. Management won't, and shouldn't be expected to pay out anything more than the bare minimum, but that leads to a society with even greater wealth disparity than we currently have.

I wouldn't argue that there aren't cons. Unions are a human institution and bound to fail at some things. I just think that society will be better if there is a balancing force to work against the downward pressure from management. If not unions, what would you suggest?

I don't even think the company's condition matters, though. If we stop asking for somebody else to hold onto our money and because we can't trust ourselves to save it, invest it, etc. ourselves...and instead get market-based compensation (while managing our own retirement plan...or paying somebody else to do it for us)...we don't have to worry about pension funds running dry, bailouts, and confusing tax loopholes which have to be accounted for indirectly through other means.

Again...just another example, in my simple mind, to restore simple accountability in this country. We always hear we don't have it any more...these types of things are why (imo).

I still feel like if you do that though you're going to have to provide a basic level of competent financial planning for everyone free...otherwise you're going to have people who are incapable of doing it on their own who don't have the ability/resources to learn how to do it themselves who are going to end up destitute and relying on the public one way or the other.

Changing the attitude from "a pension" to "a pool of money for you to invest and be responsible for yourself" is also a MASSIVE shift in mindset...the public at large isn't going to go for that easily, or likely even at all.

As much as I think modern unions are full of too much garbage, the concept of a union is very much congruent with capitalist ideals. The link to socialism is all about big business trying to play into the red scare for profit in the 50's/60's.

Guilds, professional groups, unions, you name it, for quite some time people recognize the value in consolidating and controlling supply to get negotiation value. Primarily because most humans don't mind cheap substitutes, quality rarely wins out over quantity, and entities with massive stockpiles can starve out any individual to force them to negotiate at a disadvantage.

I think a group should be allowed to form a union, conduct a strike, and prevent MEMBERS from working (with an option to sue those who cross the strike line as a contract violation preferably). I think all of the illegal tactics and traits of today's unions should be strictly punished, people have a right not to join a union that many unions just don't seem to appreciate. Particularly when said union is not doing its best by the workers to begin with.

What is unethical about it?

Yeah...pretty sure that as long as I'm not on private property I can stand wherever the fuck I please and carry whatever the fuck I want...can also obstruct people frankly...as long as I don't physically assault them.

The bulk of Americans don't have substantial retirement accounts and don't have the spare income to create them.

Its worked that way from the beginning of currency. Its only been a (relatively) recent thing to offer. I get what you're saying but I don't think the shift in mentality would be that difficult at all.

I'd also bet that the very people who would have issues and need financial guidance are the same people who don't have it today. Most construction workers, daily laborers, and service jobs (i.e. the part time types). They don't get this today either so I don't know that there is anything that changes. By contrast, I'd say that the average worker who has a pension knows enough about such matters to go seek the financial advice necessary.

Well, there's the Average American, and then there is the American w/ Retirement Account (or pension of some sort).

The person that would be impacted would be the person with a pension or some such guarantee later in life. Rather than accepting such benefits, why not just take the risk out of this equation and have market based wages which dont include (potentially) bogus benefits? That's where the spare income comes from.

Huh??

"It's worked that way from the beginning of time" doesn't mean a thing when you look at how things have been done in the past few generations, which is where people's expectations are formed. "Gee...this is how it used to be in the 1700's" is no comfort to someone whose parents and grandparents had Social Security.

And I don't understand your point about how the people without financial advice who would need it don't have it today...I think you're missing my point. My point is that they don't have financial advice today, but they're also not managing their own chunk of Social Security $$ (which many of them are over-dependent on for their retirement). They may have some minor investments themselves, but those are likely largely ancillary/overly simplistic. Social Security is a pension in the sense that they're not managing it...they know what they're going to get, and they don't NEED to manage it, because the government does that. So they just collect the check - without worrying about the investment mix that got it there.

If we change the system and hand them a lump sum they're all going to need much more financial planning advice to get them to that end goal, or that money is all going to evaporate in the vast majority of cases (and then they'll end up getting medical treatment in hospital emergency rooms and eating rice and beans for 20 years after retirement).

It strikes me at this point that you're essentially arguing for a massive subsidization of business for financial advisors or big wirehouses/insurance companies with the capability of offering TDFs (target date funds) to people who don't have the capability/sophistication of creating their own financial plans themselves. In that sense what you're arguing is just a big giveaway to large firms (many of whom are the same people who received a fuckload of TARP money) as well as a few small firms (the market would, make no mistake about it, be dominated by the large firms).

DT...you're talking SS. I'm talking about pensions and the benefit deferral vs just negotiating sustainable wages (as in the types typically associated with unions such as UAW). My point is that rather than have an unsustainable pension (among other benefits) negotiated, collapse the company/industry, and then need a bailout...they should simply negotiate this compensation upfront so it (a) doesn't disappear into thin air when the employee retires & (b) the company doesn't have to make large gambles of future earnings. Because in my view...the company should not have to present its financial capability to employees...just as employees dont need to do present this to their company unless there are pertinent reasons...such as an accountant must have access to company financial info and some employees must drive company vehicles.

I've already stated that SS/Medicare (in my mind) belong at the state level so that they can be more appropriately financed & managed.

I don't think I understand what you're proposing.

Oops - didn't realize we were on different pages there.

Point still stands to a lesser degree. A lot of those corporate pensions are in structures where the company provides a significant amount of basic financial planning/makes the options easier to understand for lay-people. If you remove the companies role from that then who is going to give that advice to the workers for no out-of-pocket cost?

Apparently I must be having a different discussion than everybody else. :)

The last page-ish has been about unions, good/bad, or whatever. So my take was that the negotiations that occur between unions and corporations are not healthy as the lead to unsustainable agreements, and cited the GM/UAW issues as an example.

To which your response was that they were promised these pensions (which act as a form of compensation as the funding is some split between employer/employee). To which my submission was that they should negotiate for such benefits upfront to gain higher wages rather than (potentially) vapor-benefits as this can be managed more predictably. Not so much an argument against unionizing, more a question of the practicality of such a benefit.

Or...atl least that's the conversation I'm having in my head. :lol:

Considering that only 12% of US workers are in a union (in the private sector, only 7%; and in IT, 5%), I would say the upward pressure has been there despite most of US workers not being in a union (if one believes the government's average wage index - and you chart it out up to 2008 - the last two years don't count).

My understanding is that wages have been stagnant(adjusted for inflation) for the bottom 50% for about thirty years. The rich are getting much richer and the rest of the country is stuck.

I thought you had broadened your idea to Social Security.

Did you adjust for inflation? Because if you do, wages have been steadily decreasing not increasing

SI

No, I'm just talking about unsustainable negotiations (unionized or other) that end up resulting in massive bailouts or defunct industries because the cost to produce something is just too high. Not (necessarily) a union example, but light manufacturing/assembly is an industry that has all but gone as well imo because of the cost of labor.

I think SS/MCare can be run effectively and sustainably at the state level. Not an instant switchover as I've said before, but a gradual transition would be pragmatic imo.

I don't think I have all the answers by any means...but I do think there is a fundamental disconnect between the "ruling class" and the rest of the country. So the more directly accountable we can make them, the better off we'll be. As we see, "winning" between the political parties does not benefit the populace as a whole. So we need to change the motivating factors to be more representative of the voting base.

Let's be clear on what I am talking about:
1. There are roles for unions in some segments.
2. Unions are not needed in many other segments ... generalized as areas where the industry is mature, normal steady-state, lots of competition etc.
3. I do believe there is a role for government (some may say big) to protect, enforce (and yes, bailout when the system fails)
4. I don't believe the free market works all the time for all the people.
5. I don't believe the market is efficient all the time and is "more efficient" for some people than others

With that said, I break out unions into provided 2 main services (1) total compensation negotiations (e.g. payroll, benefits, retirement etc) and (2) work environment (e.g. data privacy, sexual harassment, job security etc.).

As a substitute, the free market should largely dictate this with government/judicial intervention if necessary (granted, the definition of necessary is relative).

I think your argument is that employees banding together to form a union is free market. My counter is the act of forming a union may be free market, the results of a union (e.g. job security) is not.

For work environment, I have implemented systems to accomodate unions (including work unions in EMEA). They are overly cumbersome, promote complacency and inefficiency etc.

I think the 2 typical poster child examples are the auto and teacher unions.

Blame the Citizens United decision.


I'm sure this will happen for a lot of the candidates. With a little ingenuity anybody, domestic or foreign, can give any amount to a candidate and have it all remain anonymous.

Okay. We are really crashing now.

This is in reference to the whole Teacher tenure, union talk last page. :D

Dow ended down 512. Fantastic!

So I don't follow politics all that closely, but it seems to me Obama hasn't done squat since he took over. Seems we may very well be in worse shape now than we were and he hasn't delivered on any of his promises.

Random stock market type question that I figured I'd put in here given the events of today and an argument at work. Are you able to take out the original contribution to a Roth IRA at any time tax AND penalty free if you are under the retirement qualified age (or whatever they call it)?

Thanks - we couldn't find a good answer for this due to vague wordings all over the place.

Here's a place with a decent flow chart and explanations:

Roth IRA Withdrawal Rules

No, you have to pay a 10% penalty unless it meets one of the exceptions.

Thanks...

From that site, as well as other places I have looked into now:

The most important thing to know is this: Contributions (that is, the money that you put into your Roth) can come out at any time, free of taxes and penalties.

I like Matt Damon, ready for the next movie.

Are you sure about that? I thought the 10% penalty is for contributions you take out.

Yeah, I've spent more time researching on the various investing sites. Here's from Etrade:

Flexibility to withdraw original contributions tax-and penalty-free at any time, for any reason

He has delivered on his promises. I get not everyone agrees those kept were a good thing ...

1. Moved us out of Iraq and more into Afghanistan
2. Healthcare
3. I give him some credit for stabilizing the market/economy at the beginning of his term. I also acknowledge Bush gets some credit also. This, obviously, is not to say he has fixed the economy.
4. Said he would go into Pakistan to take out OBL if they had an opportunity.
5. Don't ask don't tell
etc.

Here's a link, don't know how reputable.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

Thanks for the link and response Edward.

I guess my question is what has really changed with healthcare?

Not too much yet--the big changes start to kick in about three years down the road (exchanges, mandatory purchase of health insurance).

Which can be changed before they ever go into effect by lawmakers. It's nothing but promises until it actually happens, just like taxes. The Bush tax cuts are supposed to end next year, but the Republicans are already acting like it's a given they'll stay. I'd be very surprised if more than 30-40% of Obamacare actually goes into effect. A repeal at some level is more likely given that 2012 does not look like a good election for Democrats at the national and state level.

To say Obama hasn't done squat is just strange. He's passed a good deal of things.

I doubt that there will be much of any repeal at all of the ACA. Especially if, and I believe he will, Obama wins re-election in 2012.