UNION BASHING

[fe352v8]

According to the Census Bureau:

Personal income per capita in constant (2000) dollars for 2003 was $30033.

In 33 of the 50 states, the per capita income was lower.

For the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 the average percentage of the population living below poverty level was 11.7%.

In 20 of 50 states the population living below poverty level was higher

Nationally, approximately 13.6% of workers were represented by a union, in 2000.

States with highest union representation in 2000

1. New York 25.7%(per capita income $34725 percentage below poverty level 14.0%)
2. Hawaii 24.6% (per capita income $29,350 percentage below poverty level 10.6%)
3. Alaska 21.9% (per capita income $31,871 percentage below poverty level 8.3%)
4. Michigan 21% (per capita income $28,900 percentage below poverty level 10.3%)
5. New Jersey 20.9%(per capita income $38,383 percentage below poverty level 7.8%)

States with lowest union representation in 2000

1. North Carolina 3.7% (per capita income $26,808 percentage below poverty level 13.1%)
2. South Carolina 4.1% (per capita income $24,811 percentage below poverty level 13.5%)
3. South Dakota 5.7% (per capita income $27,756 percentage below poverty level 10.2%)
3. Virginia 5.7% (per capita income $31,969 percentage below poverty level 8.7%)
4. Arkansas 5.9% (per capita income $23,061 percentage below poverty level 18.0%)
4. Texas 5.9% (per capita income $27,887 percentage below poverty level 15.3%)
5. Mississippi 6.1% (per capita income $22,263 percentage below poverty level 17.6%)

States with highest per capita income

1. Connecticut, $40,990, (below poverty level 7.8%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 16.4%
2. New Jersey, $38,383, (below poverty level 7.8%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 20.9%
3. Massachusetts, $37,800, (below poverty level 9.6%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 14.4%
4. Maryland, $35,444, (below poverty level 7.3%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 14.7%
5. New York, $34,725, (below poverty level 14.0%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 25.7%

States with lowest per capita income

1. Mississippi, $22,263, (below poverty level 17.6%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 6.1%
2. Arkansas, $23,061, (below poverty level 18.0%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 5.9%
3. West Virginia $23,146, (below poverty level 16.0%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 14.4%
4. Utah $23714, (below poverty level 9.3%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 7.5%
5. New Mexico $24,250, (below poverty level 17.8%) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 8.3%

States with highest percentage of persons below the poverty level

1. Arkansas, 18.0%  (per capita income $23,061) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 5.9%
2. New Mexico, 17.8% (per capita income $24,250) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 8.3%
3. Mississippi, 17.6% (per capita income $22,263) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 6.1%
4. Louisiana, 17.0% (per capita income $24,780) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 7.1%
5. West Virginia, 16.0% (per capita income $23,146) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 14.4%

States with lowest percentage of persons below poverty level

1. New Hampshire 5.6% (per capita income $32,948) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 10.5%
2. Minnesota 6.5% (per capita income $32,702) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 18.4%
3. Maryland 7.3% (per capita income $35,444) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 14.7%
4. Connecticut 7.8% (per capita income $40,990) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 16.4%
4. New Jersey 7.8% (per capita income $38,383) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 20.9%
5. Delaware 8.1% (per capita income $31,151) percentage of workers represented by a union (in 2000) 13.4%

I think it is clear that when you compare the states with the lowest percentages of union representation to those with the highest that there is a positive correlation between union representation per capita income and the percentage of people living below poverty level

For those who care about party politics and red versus blue

In states with the highest percentage of union representation, only Alaska was a red state in the last elections, all the others were blue.

In states with the lowest percentage of union representation, all were red states in the last elections.

The states with the highest per capita income were all blue states in the last elections, and the states with the lowest per capita incomes were all red states.

The states with the highest percentage below poverty levels were all red states, and the states with the lowest were all blue states.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[williamlayton]

Well, now, what a lively group.
I am not picking argument with FE. His statistics give a good representation of the facts. Some of these states with the below avg income also are low maintenance or low cost of living states. Some of the states mentioned as high per capita do not tell the exact story either. $30,000 heck even $50,000 a year in Boston will not get you along much.
Now unions have their place and we can expect to see a rise in union membership as this economy turns from corporate responsibility to corporate irresponsibility.
There is nothing new under the sun, only things forgotten. That is true with corporations as well as with folks. corporate memory is short,
corporations began bringing up standards for employees when they were forced too. They have, recently, begun too get greedy again because they were allowed to.
Now this world economy all the big boys seem to want will change this little scheme of mine but it will only lead to world turmoil and much more violence than we have ever seen before and, well, much more corruption and greed.
Make no mistake about it boys, this world economy is not a good thing and is greed driven. The end results are to be found in the last book.
Blessings

[ironglow]

That is an interesting bit of stats..
  Another interesting list of stats that Fox News talked about just this morning...simply reporting the results of a comprehensive survey..

   Which states are the most "giving"?..That is, which ones open their wallets and give a greater percentage of their income to charitable causes ?

    I guess it was no surprise to me...the "red" states ...beginning with Mississppi were the most generous and sharing..
  The big L, liberal states like Mass & Conn.were the stingiest...

  Steve Doocy, looking at the survey, said that one could just about tell where each state stood, depending on whether it was "red" or "blue"...

   The red ones were givers...the blue ones ...stingy...


    I find it comical that the Libs are always crying about"taking care of the less fortunate !"...
     But when it comes to " putting your money where your mouth is"...they suddenly clam up !...LOL

  I guess we can assume they really want to be giving VERY freely...but with OUR money not THEIRS...LOL

[Lawdog]

ironglow,

I find it comical that the Libs are always crying about"taking care of the less fortunate !"...
But when it comes to " putting your money where your mouth is"...they suddenly clam up !...LOL

I tell you something really make you laugh.   :-D   I have found that it’s the conservatives that will promote big business at the expense of the working man and the liberals that promote the working man at the expense of big business.  While this may be funny it’s also very true.  Lawdog
 

[Nightrain52]

Union or nonunion I could care less one way or the other. They both have their good points and bad points. What worries me the most is if all these foreign countries stopped importing their goods to us we would sure be in a mess. We can't even support ourselves anymore because most of the manufacterers have moved out of this country to foreign soil. We can't even make enough small arms ammo to supply the war in Iraq. It is being made in Tiwain. Why can't the government contract this work to the ammunition companies here in the US. You had all better grab your backside and hang on because it's going to be a rough ride the next few years.

[nomosendero]

Lawdog
True enough, the liberals do talk a good talk, but they DO NOT walk the walk! They do support the down trodden, if they are on Gov. aid or criminals, however while they burden the "working man" they have sworn to protect with all the taxes that they can heap on.
No doubt, some big business is greedy, but some are big because they
are good and efficient at what they do. Besides, no one has ever forced
me to work for one of these dreaded big companies, but the Gov. does
force me to work harder & longer hours to pay the LIBERAL taxes to
support the non-working class that Lberals have set up.

[nomosendero]

fe352v8
Thanks for the post. However, I am a student of History, not to the extent of my older brother who taught history for many years, but enough of 1
to know this VERY relevant fact. The same States that you correctly show
are more prosperous & those who are poorer were in the same shape
before Unions were formed! It looks as though you are trying to tell us that the Labor Union States are more prosperous because of Unions, but
History proves otherwise. Rather, these States started early as Industrial
States & States like my home State of AR. was until recent times mostly
Agri.  In AR, LA, MS & other Southern & a few Western States that had vast undeveloped areas, large farms were est. that gave only the owners
& a few businesses wealth. Since the 1960's the trend is toward more
industry in these States & in just the last 10-15 years this has been stepped-up as the result of plants leaving the North. I wonder why?
But anyway the Unions started in the Industrial States, the more prosperous States as everyone knows.
As Williamlayton stated, the cost of living is much higher in these blue States, so these numbers are somewhat skewed. I have a cousin in
the People's Republic of Maryland that pays almost as much for property
taxes as we would pay for his place here.
I sell Industrial equipment & this keeps me up to date with Industry Growth Trends. We all know that America is losing too much of our Industry to other countries. But out of those that build in America, the
South is getting more than there share & that will continue because of
less Union pressure here & hense lower but not low for the area & cost of living pay. We have a few Union plants that we take care of here. Some of these Union customers have a Lease with maint. & things like changing
blown light bulbs on Forklifts would be taken care of by a general Maint.
guy in a regular AR. Plant. But not with these Union guys, no they call us,
we send a mechanic, (in 1 Plant, 60 miles) to change that bulb & charge them, travel & all. The Plant has to add this to the production cost & charge the Customer that they sell the customer to, in this case GM & Ford.  This makes them less competitive in the World Market. BTW, we
have 4 new plants in my territory (built in the last 2 years) that build parts
for Toyota & Toyota is building a truck Plant here next year. Can anyone
figure out how this happened or should I give more labor examples?
BTW, I never have understood the concept of going to work somewhere for an agreed wage & then later demand alot more pay & benefits. I
figure that if I need more, other than regular wages, I can go to work somewhere else. No one owes me squat. I count my blessings, but I grew
up on a farm, worked const. through College & have worked for above ave. pay since then, above ave. whether you are talking AR. money or NJ.
And I never needed a Union to accomplish this & neither do others.
Yea, Blue States are more Union, which is more akin to income redist.
or a little bit of Socialism. That and Blue States go together like Ham & Eggs the same way they like gun control. But I would protect anyones right to be in a Union if they choose to & I see no need to bash them, after all they are bashing themselves silly in the World Market anyway. They are losing there power little by little each day & those Blue State incomes will slip a little with it. Sad in a way, as the Unions had good first intentions.

[fe352v8]

Foxx is using the “Generosity Index”, developed by the Catalogue For Philanthropy.  The index is based upon the average adjusted gross income as reported on federal tax returns, for a given state and then compared against the average charitable deductions claimed on the federal tax returns from that state.

According to their database, the state of Mississippi, which was most rated most generous and lowest in per capita income ($22,263), reported $1,080,565,000; compare this to Connecticut, which was rated 44th in generosity and highest in per capita income ($40,990), reported $2,177,039,00.  If we divide the reported contribution by population we get per capita giving.  

The population for Mississippi, based on Census Bureau estimates for 2004, is 2,902,966 and for Connecticut it is 3,503,604.  

Per capita giving Mississippi $372.23
Per capita giving Connecticut $621.37

The way to make Mississippi look more generous is by calculating per capita giving as a percentage of per capita income.

Mississippi per capita giving as a percentage of per capita income, 1.67%
Connecticut per capita giving as a percentage of per capita income, 1.52%

The flaw in the “Generosity Index” is that it derives its’ charitable giving figures from ITEMIZED federal tax returns, and the average adjusted gross income figures from both itemized and non-itemized returns.  Generally persons with higher incomes itemize.  

The “average adjusted gross income” is calculated by including both itemized and non-itemized returns for income to find a state’s total adjusted gross income and then dividing that by the number of returns filed.

The “average itemized charitable contribution” is calculated by totaling all itemized charitable contributions and dividing that by the number of Itemized returns filed.

This results in comparing the itemized charitable contributions of the higher income filers against the average income of all filers and thus will skew the results in favor of a state with a high proportion of non-itemizing low income filers as opposed to a state with higher proportion of itemizing high income filers.

Has nothing to do with red or blue just mathematics, of course considering our budgetary woes, it is probably easier not to think about math and concentrate on ideology.  From an accounting standpoint I guess we are all red staters.  Oh well, happy thanksgiving.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[nomosendero]

Of course giving also involves helping people, which sometimes does not include money. If I needed help while traveling through either State, I know the most likely place that I would receive help!

[fe352v8]

Nomosendero

The fact that you perceived my post as giving unions credit for “higher living” standards is exactly the point.  As you pointed out there a multitude of factors that under lay the statistics used to evidence prosperity.

Unions are not the sole or even a major cause of our causes of our economic challenges any more than corporate greed is, both are just factors.  The attributing of red or blue, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat as an indicator is equally simplistic.

I am self-employed so I am not much of a union guy, I find most union “work rules” are intended to preserve jobs.  Unfortunately they fail to account for changes in technology, much the way owners have failed to account for changes in consumption and usage.

The real shame is the failure of the American labor, owners of production, and consumer to understand and appreciate their mutually interdependent relationship.

It is good that American labor is producing parts for Toyota, but if the owners of production are not domestic then it is no so good.  Consumers need to realize that purchasing goods produced non-domestically, by a domestically owned company while not bad, has an effect on the domestic economy.  For instance you by a pair of Levi’s, they are no longer produce here, if the means of production are owned domestically then the effect are the wages lost domestically involved in their production, to some extent this can be off-set by the wages involved in the products repatriation and distribution.  However if the domestic company does not own the means of production but is merely branding a generic foreign product, such as RCA, and Magna Vox, to name but two, then this will eventually result in the practical demise of the entity thus loss of a job and wages and the ability to purchase a product.

Japanese and European automakers have established production facilities here because the costs of production are lower than in their home country.  At the same time they have erected barriers to our exportation of products, and in some case made it illegal for foreign companies to own the means of production in their markets and we are unwilling to adapt to the requirements of their market, which is a management function not a labor function.

From an economic standpoint it makes perfect sense that manufactures would locate production facilities in areas with lower costs, but this has little to do with politics and more to do with demographics and technology.  Detroit became an auto center as much because of the proximity to the Mesabi iron ore range of Minnesota, and the transportation network provide by the great lakes and railroads as Henry Ford living there

It had little if anything to do with political party affiliations or who was voted for in the last election.  If party affiliation is that much off a factor then is being a red state is the cause of the decline of the steel industry in Birmingham Alabama, Gary Indian, and Bethlehem Pennsylvania or the decline of shoe making in Missouri?  Did politics cause poultry to be a major industry in Arkansas?

There are no simply sound bite photo-op answers, just as the industrial belt became the rust belt so will the luster of the Sun Belt tarnish it is just a matter of time.  Oh well, time to check the smoker, have a happy safe Thanksgiving

By the way been to Pocahontas, nice town, and there are in both Connecticut and Arkansas that are less than friendly

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[stimpylu32]

GB / Bill
I'm truly sorry if i took your statement out of context , I can see that we do have totaly different views on this subject ,But that is what i love about your site .

People from different sides of a subject can talk about it without all the name calling and profanity .

Though we disagree on this we do tend to agree on others .

I am looking forward to meeting you in person this summer at the PD shoot if we can pull it off .  

Richard

[mjbgalt]

Hey stimpy, I didn't realize you were from ohio...I am from Wooster. Maybe if I can make it work with my schedule, we can carpool to the PD shoot. You sound like someone I could learn from.  

-Matt

[Leverdude]

Iron Glow wrote,
 

I guess it was no surprise to me...the "red" states ...beginning with Mississppi were the most generous and sharing..
The big L, liberal states like Mass & Conn.were the stingiest..

.

What about NY?  Cant get much more liberal.
I'm not taking that personally or anything & sure dont think it was aimed so to speal at me but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "giving"
If your talking about social aid or welfare I think your mistaken. My taxes are what they are here because of the high number of people getting what the working class are "giving" I see folks with cars I wish I could own living in apartments I couldn't pay for on my salary. Personally I dont think thats a good thing. Giving is for churches & charitable people not municipalities but since we're pretty swamped with liberals over here our treasury has become a charitable organization. I'd bet theres folks in the north east that get as much fanancial aid as the income of people in other areas.

Want my opinion? All this "help" is hurting us way more than any other single economic issue.

[stimpylu32]

Matt

I'm about 1 1/2 hours west of you , I've been to wooster on several trips while in high school with my Vo. Ag. class .

As for the PD shoot - Sounds like a Plan .  

[stimpylu32]

On 9-11-2001 we saw non-union and union alike give their all to try to save lives while risking their own which proves that their are good people on both sides .

After hurricane katrina we saw union and non-union alike leave their jobs to go volunteer to help , This is why no matter what anybody feels , Union / Non-union america will never give up .

[nomosendero]

fe352v8
Did politics play a roll in the poultry business? Yes, it did. Senator Dale
Bumbers & David Pryor saw to it that Tyson Foods & other poultry biggies
had tax incentives & help far beyond the norm, basically family farm status. Of course, geographic factors weighed heavily in this as well.

Obviously you missed my point, as these "more wealthy States" were
allready in that position well before Unions, but fine. Like I said the Unions
are losing there punch anyway, & this discussion will become less & less
important.

BTW, I would much prefer that our new plants comming here were producing parts for US companies, I have never owned a foreign car, but
the example I gave before of one of my Union customers is a rather
simple example of why they are here.

One thing for sure, there are nice people everywhere.

Happy Thanksgiving  

[BamBams]

10 Reasons Why Labor Unions Stink!


In broad terms, I am against Unions for the following reasons:

First of all, the premise seems to be that a person has some inherent "right" to a certain wage level, or even a certain "job" for that matter.  It's a socialist mentality with an assumption that the world "owes" me something for what I can do.

Secondly, Union tactics are counter-productive for our economy.  "If you don't pay us $XXX.XX for making widgets, then we'll just stop making widgets until everybody suffers enough to cave in and meet our demands!" Again, we see a spoiled, socialist mentality attempting to exert itself upon the American society.

Third, the above points also illustrate how unions degrade the entire concept of "team work" in the economy.  Instead of creating a healthly, symbiotic relationship between wage earners, business owners, and management, Unions create an "us against them" mentality in the work place.  This adversarial relationsip further guarantees that the employee will have to continue to fight for every scrap from management since all respect has been eroded.

Fourth, in the context of the inflation of our economy, Unions just contribute to inflation and hurt the consumer - which, in turn, hurts the business. It sets the stage for an arena in which the business must demand higher returns for it's services or products.  Again, this sets up the stage for more Union vs. Management arm wrestling as businesses must still attempt to earn a profit.

Fifth, Unions are cry baby day care centers who reckon themselves "stuck" in life, trying to draw their entire livelihood off of one business whom they reckon God put on earth to feed them.  Instead of the employee making his way in life based upon his own initiative, he becomes a parasite in his present field of endeavor.  

Sixth, Unions steal away testosterone.  If someone isn't getting what they want from an employer, they should stand on their own two feet and fight for themselves, or leave and find another business or vocation - or perhaps start their own!  Unions defeat entreprenurial spirit in America, and thwart healthy competion which just creates more inflation that hurts everyone.  The Union mentality is more adept at shaking down street corner pan handlers than earning it's own keep through ingenuity and hard work.

Seventh, Unions breed corruption and the illegal advancement of key individuals who exploit workers and live high on the hog with union dues.  Jimmy Hoffa was the consumate example, and the last 10 pages of some recent "Teamsters" magazines would show anyone a list of people supposedly removed from the Union for being "affiliated" with Cosa Nostra. Further research would show that over 90% of them get reinstated with an apology after a few months.  So where is all your "protection money" being spent?

Eighth, Unions just aren't necessary at all.  Ignorance has created them, and ignorance feeds them and keeps them alive.  There are many other ways by which a man can make a decent living, but it's easier to pay someone else to try and look after you isn't it? If I worked for a company that didn't meet my needs, I'd ask them nicely for some changes, and if they turned out to be butt holes, I'd have to ask myself why on earth I am continuing to support this dragon with my hard work?  Surely life could be much better if I started using my brain and energy in some other way?

Ninth, Unions keep bad business practices alive in America.  The goal of management in a Union confrontation is to hold back as much as possible.  Instead of a guy learning how to get along with his peers, produce a higher wage based upon his own merits, and learn basic negotiating skills for himself, he can simply whisper into the ear of the Union steward and make mountains out of mole hills.  He reckons he has so much "power" now so he'll get his day off or his 0.40 cents more an hour.  What he doesn't see is that these juvenille tactics are actually hurting his career and self worth more than simply sitting down with his manager and trying to work it out for himself.

Tenth, Unions feed the crappy employers with an ongoing labor force.  Once a business is coerced into hiring and maintaining Union labor, they adopt a mindset of "us against them."  They gravitate toward the mentality of losing ALL respect for Union employees and begin to view them as nothing more than herd of cattle who cost a small fortune to appease into working well for the company.  This perpetuates very bad attitudes in the work place, destroys employer - employee relationships, and actually takes the power away from the employee when negotiating for advancement.  Employers become "stuck" in the "this is just the way it is" mentality. So a system develops in which the business can get x number of work done by a skill set for x amount of dollars.  If employees would just make their own way in life, without the help of Unions, their individual value would increase substantially.

[ShadowMover]

Bam Bams,
People have a right to ask for whatever they want when they are selling their labor.  It doesn't belong to anyone but them. If they want to get the best price for it, what's wrong with that? If you have a farm, and you put all your grain in a silo at the co-op and hold it off the market until the price is better, does that make you a whiney socialist? No, it makes you smart for selling your product at the best price the market will bear.  If two mechanics in a town decide they won't work for less than $15 an hour , who can fault them? When you go to an auto repair place, they charge you a flat rate, and then pay their help minimum wage. Big companies set prices all the time, and nobody accuses them of having a socialist mentality.

Our parents and grandparents spent time, money and blood making this country; and now big international corporations are shipping our jobs overseas, and the ones they can't ship out they are trying to fill with cheap immigrant labor. The only things standing between a worker in this country and  third world status are a handful of politicians, some labor unions and a few people who understand the situation. Blaming the situation on unions is just a convenient method of conning the rubes. We will soon be a country of sharecroppers, who own nothing, and have no say in what is done with our land or industries. God help us. We won't be able to leave and we will have to take whatever the 'Boss' wants to pay. You can check China, India, Mexico or any other third world country and see what it will be like.
Your arguments seem very personal and almost reflect an attitude rather than a reasoned approach.  Saying things about unions 'stealing testosterone' for example, and 'socialist mentality'.  That's fine, as I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed by reading a few paragraphs in this thread. I think we both want the same outcome, but see a different  way of getting there.

We need to preserve the borders, keep our labor force highly trained, well paid, efficient, and with a sense of our value.  We are not just 'units' or 'resources'. We also need to keep corruption out of our lives, in a personal, corporate, political, and yes, Union level.

[BamBams]

Negative, negative, and negative.....

1)  It's the consumer who decides what your labor is worth on an open market, and not you.  You may think your labor is worth a great deal, but you can't sell squat if the ecomony doesn't support your idea of worth.  Unions contribute to this problem, instead of helping people learn how to stand on their own feet.  The "do it yourself" mentality is spreading like wildfire in this country right now.  With the vast resources we have in this country, we ought to have the most inexpensive goods in the world, but we do not?  Care to explain why?

3) Labor unions ARE the reason jobs are going out to India.  The "boss" can't make money anymore because he cannot afford to pay you what you are demanding and still make a great profit - and making a profit is what big business is all about.

4) If there weren't any unions, I could wire up a new home for about 75% less money than a unionized electrical company could.   Heck, just look at what the teacher's union has done to our public school systems!

5) When I lived in England, which is a highly unionized, I saw major, national projects stalled due to union vs. management squabbles. All this does nothing but hurt to everyone.  In our country, the dang Air Traffic Controllers Union almost brought the whole nation to its knees, and what did they get out of it?  Nada - zip - nothing!

6) You can call me "scabbie" from now on, because I'll never let some union determine whether I should like my job or wages.  I'm not interested in their so called battles.  So how much money does it take for 20,000 employees to make a point with their boss?  I dunno, look at your union dues and do the math, then do more math and subtract the overhead it takes to run a union - it's peanuts compared to the money you are paying.  Yup, you're just being exploited.  If one doesn't like their job, then why on earth do they stay there?? Hello??

7) And please don't lay the China argument on me!  Labor unions are the reason we HAVE to buy our goods from China and support their system. The middle class cannot afford to go shopping outside of buying Chinese products from Wal-Mart!  The prices of American commodities have gotten so expensive, due to high labor, that half the people here buy Chinese.  We have MADE China!

If I don't do my job well, get along with others, and look after myself, there are at least 1000 people waiting to take my place - and that is how it should be.

[jh45gun]

Well said bambams
!!!

[ShadowMover]

One last reply, then I'm just going to listen.  The market does have an effect on the price of everything, but we all know how the markets can be manipulated, on everything from crude oil to 20 round magazines. I don't hear too much pissin' and groanin' when big business takes a mouthful and rips it off, but oh if a union man wants more than a bowl full of gruel it's time to put an end to these socialist tendencies, break out the red white and blue!  As far as the 'do it yourself' mentality, it seems like a lost art. I've always done almost everything myself, from reloading to removing warts with Freon , to rebuilding my engines. Most people I know don't even change their own oil.  Our goods are not that high in price are they? With the rip off union pricing, your reasoning should have them through the roof. I don't understand it all, but in my book,"still make a great profit - and making a profit is what big business is all about", isn't what life is all about. It doesn't keep my belly full or warm my house or put my kids through school. Maybe it will keep the boss' house warm and his belly full. If the boss is so smart and independent, let him do the work and stand on his own two feet.  It will build his character.  The reason production is shipped to India is because they work for slave labor wages there, and they can dump the waste right into the streets, and nobody cares about on the job injuries. There's another poor sucker in line when one gets killed. The real reason they went to India is to make huge profits by paying pennies on the dollar for wages, and still charging exactly the same prices here in the US. Companies like General Electric shut down profit making plants here in the US and sent them overseas,subsidized by our tax dollars, and you blame it on unions? It should be taxed to extent that the workers and jobs here in the US are protected.
I take it your do electrical work, as you mention  you could wire up homes cheaper without unions.  If you do the work yourself, you won't have to hire any of that expensive union help. Quit gripin' and grab a box of wire and get busy. No, you want to complain that another working man is cutting into your profit by demanding a fair price for his labor, instead of what you want to pay him.
Have you ever thought why England is so highly unionized? They were the site of the original industrial revolution, along with sweat shops, child labor, indentured servants, and every other abuse that could be heaped on a human being. The moneyed class there thought so highly of themselves they didn't think the working class were worthy of any mercy or decent treatment. See Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
He finally shamed them into some awareness.
The Air Traffic Controllers overplayed their hand, broke the law and got what they deserved.

You'll be lucky if there is only a 1000 people waiting for your job, if Bush doesn't reverse course on his border enforcement. Not only will there be a thousand men, but they will work for 10% of what you ask, and will all live in a cardboard box on the job site, cooking their dinner with scrap lumber.  I've already seen it. They won't speak our language but they will be so thankful that there are understanding people here in the US who believe in open markets for labor and hate those gringo unions. Their kids will thank you too.  It will just like home.

Happy Thanksgiving

[williamlayton]

BAMS-
I guess we just will have need to differ on this subject.
In response to your thoughts point by point.
1) Who is the consumer? Who sets the prices? I would think the consumer is the population. The prices are set by the manufacturer or supplier and the consumer pays the prices. If you would think that the small labor prices in China, lets say the third world, are passed on to the consumer I would disagree. The labor prices are to the benefit of the corporation not the public. Look at the prices of designer clothing--made by the same folks that make clothing for Wal-Mart. There are other examples. Gasoline, you take that one and run with it.
1-A) Not everyone is a potential business owner. Some are just not built that way.

2/3) Great profit can be greed. Making money is good. Greed will kill.

4) If there were not unions/decent wages/ a decent return on skills for folks You/I/All of us would not even have need of good prices on wiring because we would not be buying/building in the first place, we would be renting.
You would have need to expand on your thought of teachers unions. I do not believe the answer would be any different. Ruin-that may be an issue we would have need of putting in the camp of the failing american home/family not the teachers. Teachers can't teach because the family wants day care not education and will not back a teacher because it takes from their time and is too much trouble.

5) Unions can be disruptive . This disruption must be examined on a case by case study, not as a basis for tossing out the baby with the bath-water.

6) A person may stay at a job for more reasons than money but that again is on a case by case basis.
If this is truly a free state, free enterprise state then unions must be seen as an extension of this republic.
Now if you would want all jobs within a corporation to be outsourced to contract workers what then is the contract worker and who would set his wages? Eventually, we all have the cost of doing business and making a profit. You would see your responsibility as a one man operation, but you personally have experienced the results of this and so have I. The corporations are making more monet than ever and seeking to pay less to those who would support them by buying their products/services and that is just not adding up, in the long run. 1+1 cannot equal 3, well for very long.
A little inflation is a good thing, the opposite is a depression-not a good thing for any.

7) Labor unions are not the reason we have China. Greed is why we have China--go back to #1. Reasoned profit and growth should prevent China--Greed will cause long range problems for all, even those who would think their wealth would protect them. It will not. Read the last book.
Blessings

[Leverdude]

The bottom line on product costs & prices is what the consumer will pay. If its too expensive to produce here at a cost that people will pay theres more too it than the labor costs. People, union or non union need to make a living. In most of the nonunion opinions I'm hearing it seems folks think people should work for free if needed to keep jobs here. The issue with things being made over seas is more one of the corperations seeking the cheapest production costs nop matter the cost to our economy. Its not just unions. They get stuff made in China for costs that NOBODY can work for in America. I'm not saying thats good because I dont think it is. As far as a person negotiating for themselves that sounds good but lets be realistic people. I'm highly regarded by those who know my work. I could work for almost any roofing or copper shop I choose.
They all charge basically the same rate for work. I can demand what I see as a fair wage & get it. But that fair wage wont buy insurance, put money in a pension & annuity & provide training for younger folks getting a start in the trade. How is it a unions fault that a company that gets the same money in the same market wont treat its workers the same as a union shop?
Fact is if you work for a nonunion contractor here you get money & thats it. They have 401k's you can put your money in & sometimes health plans but again you pay that from your check. My package is just over $50 an hour but my check is better than $20 less an hour. Work nonunion for $20 less per hour & let the boss get rich while I go broke? Why on earth would I do that?
They get $85 on average here an hour for the labor I perform so I guess a $35 per hour profit per man isn't enough. :roll:

Now I suppose I could go to a nonunion shop & work there so my kids cant go to the dentist or doctor unless an emergency, I could be a burden on society in my old age & leave my wife & kids nothing when I die. But I wont.

I'm amazed that people cant see past the first page & realize that its the big corporations that drive work over seas. When they need to cut costs do you see them taking a cut in their 6 & 7 figure salaries? These guys who produce nothing? Nope, instead they take from the working man or go over seas. Is that the unions fault? I guess for the simple minded it might be but for someone who really wants to know why instead of complaining its obvious. Its the big buisness in this country thats doing it, not the working class stiffs who are trying to make a living.

As someone mentioned when you buy these goods made in China for a dollar a week you pay the going rate for them here. You dont find jeans for $1 because they were made in China. A TV made in singapore dont sell for $5 either. This is capitalism folks & if people choose to work for less money & benifits than a union shop they sure shouldnt blame those doing the best they can.
Heck just about every police, fire department & other municipal employee is represented by a union yet theres no crying about them. How much time do they spend reading the paper or playing cards? Should they pick up garbage when theres no fires or roberies?
If you think you can go to your boss & get what a union gets just because your that good, go for it. I hope it works, but if theres 1000 other guys waiting willing to do that work with no bennies I think you'll find yourself out of work. This from a guy who wasn't in a union till 5 years ago. I worked 20 years making folks rich & getting the least they could pay for it before my eyes were opened. I bargained for insurance & a 401k, I tried for dental but guess what. Just wasn't gonna happen. So this fellow I worked for who had tripple the guys on the books my present boss has & often more couldnt give his guys that much when he's seeing a profit of $60 per hour per man. Thats greed, not a guy wanting to do good by his family.

Thats my view from here & like I said in my first post things might be different other places with other unions but the fact remains that if a company gives their workers what they need there would be no unions, unions check the greed of big buisness & small buisness alike.

[BamBams]

I guess I'll concede to a few of William Layton's points, but my mind still isn't changed.  I work in a non-union environment, and I've got plenty of benefits - insurance, 401K, etc etc etc.  They even pay my phone bill! My last job was the same way, but it DID go over to India.  Could a union have stopped that?  No way.

In fact, over 85% of the people I used to work with got laid off.  Some are still out of work, and I am considered "fortunate."  None of this ties into unions though.  Had I been in a "union" what could have been done about it?

I can see a clear path as to how unions make everything so dang expensive!  If we didn't have all this inflation, we could AFFORD to work for $5.00 an hour and live just fine.

We're headed down a dangerous path with our economy, and it's all going to fall apart one day soon.  The unions aren't part of the solution - they are part of the problem.

[stimpylu32]

Yes unions may be corrupt to a extreme level , But so the CEO,s of the companys that they work for and so are the politicians that are running our country into the ground / RED , BLUE it makes no difference .

Pork bellys are pork bellys , Companys like Walmart that buy goods from China and other 3rd. world countrys for pennys on the dollar and sell them for 10% below what an american company could provide them for is just plain GREEDY .

The big oil companys can post record profits yet use 90% union labor is just plain GREEDY .

Just look at the ENRON mess , The unions had nothing to do with that but , That was just one of many examples of corporate GREED .

Why is it that a company can go out of business , deprive the employees of their hard earned retirement money , Yet the CEO's and CFO's walk away with a GOLDEN PARACHUTE payment of millions .

Companys that move american jobs overseas just to increase their profits and then want the US goverment to give them tax breaks are just plain GREEDY .

If we as a single person stands up to say enough is enough , No one listens but if 1,000,000 union members stand up some WILL listen .

[Leverdude]

I guess I'll concede to a few of William Layton's points, but my mind still isn't changed.  I work in a non-union environment, and I've got plenty of benefits - insurance, 401K, etc etc etc.  They even pay my phone bill! My last job was the same way, but it DID go over to India.  Could a union have stopped that?  No way.

In fact, over 85% of the people I used to work with got laid off.  Some are still out of work, and I am considered "fortunate."  None of this ties into unions though.  Had I been in a "union" what could have been done about it?

I can see a clear path as to how unions make everything so dang expensive!  If we didn't have all this inflation, we could AFFORD to work for $5.00 an hour and live just fine.

We're headed down a dangerous path with our economy, and it's all going to fall apart one day soon.  The unions aren't part of the solution - they are part of the problem.

I'm not saying that unions are the end all solution but its real likely that your bennies are a result of union competition. unions sure cant prevent lay offs either, thats a result of capitolism.

As far as $5 per hour bieng fine with no unions I'll have to dissagree. Will property taxes go down without unions? How about food costs or gas?
I know I live in an expensive area but $200 per week before taxes seems to me impossibly low. My property taxes on my home are over $6000 a year alone.
A union sure couldn't prevent your old company going over seas but it didn't cause it either & that seems to be the reasoning by those who are antiunion in this thread. That company likely went overseas for the same reasons most do, cost cutting without hurting the management who sit back & collect fat checks on our work. I wonder how many company bigwig positions are filled by citizens of India. Likely none. So the rich win & the middleclass gets the boot. Therein lies the problem as I see it. Unions are largely irrelevent.

Its real easy to point at a big impersonal entity like a labor union & blame societies ills on it, but that dont make it right.  

I'm gonna go see if I can poke another deer with an arrow.  :grin:

[stimpylu32]

Bambams

In the early 70s when work dried up here in Ohio my dad moved us to Larmar Co. were he went to work for a non-union electrical contractor .

With the 4 of us he had to work 60 to 70 hours a week just to keep a roof over our heads , One of the jobs he was on was the owners house , it was 6 bed rooms , 3 bathrooms and an indoor pool .

I remember it well because he would take me with him on the weekends to help . Just so he could leave early to come home to us for a  few hours .  

We lived in a 2 BR. house that we rented . Well 2 years later we packed all we could fit in a small trailer and moved back to Ohio where he got a job at the local Ford plant and from that day on i didn't have to worry if he was going to be home and he did not have to worry if he would be able to have food for us eat or a roof over our heads .

My father and i do not see eye to eye on alot of things but i will never forget what a union has done for our family .

Richard Kohli

[BamBams]

Well, stimpylu32, right now I am just like your Dad was.  The only day I've had off this month was yesterday.  Nobody is making me work 7 days a week.  I am doing it by choice, and I'm thankful that I can do it!  My boss is forcing me to take 3 days off next month, and I am upset about it because I need the money.  My daughter misses me, and I miss her also, but she is learning a lot about life these days -- especially not to take things for granted.

I don't believe the union did this for your Dad.  I believe your Dad just made good and tough choices from which his whole family could benefit.    If I could find a way to make more money and work less, I'd move and do it in heartbeat!  Frankly, I wouldn't care if it was a union place or not.  I just wouldn't join the union.  *smiles*

[nomosendero]

Good story Richard. I see how this experience could have a lasting impact
concerning your opinion of Unions. I am glad that this worked out for your
Dad & your family.

I have a story too. I grew up in the Ozarks & until I was 13, my Dad was
a Mechanic (owned his own shop) & we had a small farm where we raised
Cattle & Hogs. We barely got by & then close to my 14th birthday my Dad
went into business with a well-to-do Farmer & started buying & selling
equipment. Later they parted company but my Dad continued to build the
business & became quite successful. All of this time a Union or any kind of
Board making decisions for us. That has carried over to my way of thinking the same way that you experience influenced your thinking, & I
sure understand that!
However, looking at this objectively, these retirement & other incentives
are now coming back to roost with the Auto people. You cannot put a
pencil to these numbers & make it work. That is why I see these new
foreign plants come to our area & not Ford or GM. GM is sure making the
news, but it is not what we like.

[stimpylu32]

As much as a lot of people would like to pin the problems of Ford and GM on the union it was the choice of their management to grow to this point .

No one can tell me that 20 or even 30 years ago that their number crunchers did not know that some day they would have to pay off on all the retirement packages that THEY agreed to .

Or was it a case of them feeling that if they hold out long enough that they could just take it back from the little guys that that made them the money .

Bambams - I truly know how you feel , Been there , since i have worked both sides of the table i can see good and bad on both sides .

I will be the first to admit that i have made more money building Honda plants than i ever did with Ford and GM combined .

I do not know how it is Co. but here all the Honda owned plants say forigen trade zone . This was a choice of our goverment to let a forigen car company come into our country . They could have just as easily said we don't want your cars in our country .

Look at the trade deficit in this country , does anyone feel that WE are getting a Fair shake , How much does China import from the US or how much does Japan import from the US compared to what we bring in from them .

This was a case of big money saying that if you want to charge us to bring our product in , we will just build it in the US , We will sell it for the same price as the american car companys but we will only pay 2/3 as much to the people that do the work .