9 ms·

This one instance might be so (unions are imperfect human endeavors), but this article comes across as thinly-veiled MSM/establishment strawman/false equivocati

This one instance might be so (unions are imperfect human endeavors), but this article comes across as thinly-veiled MSM/establishment strawman/false equivocation via the pernicious, irrational, data-free worldview which completely ignores the net positive force unions had in the bloody struggle for worker pay and working conditions in the 19th and 20th centuries. See also: "Inequality for All" and "Where to Invade Next?"

twblalock 10y ago
Unions did a lot for working people. But that's not relevant to the question of whether or not they are on the right or wrong side in this particular case.
hueving 10y ago
"helped in the past" != "helpful now" Burning coal has been a tremendous help to society, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it when we find better alternatives for each of its use cases. Can you name some of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years? Does that outweigh their anti competitive nature that has led to companies moving manufacturing out of unionized areas entirely?
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  Off the top of my head, try being a non-union Electrician, Plumber, etc. in San Francisco for a day. At the end of that day, you will drop to your knees, and thank god for those lefty unions. At the end of a few years, you just might be able to afford a house. Actually San Francisco has a lot of union jobs, and they arn't moving to China. Personally, I think people in tech will look back, and wish they had some Union protection. It's the one profession I'm shocked hasen't completely moved overseas. What's the better alternative? America is better now because got rid of a lot of unions? Yes--a lot of products are made where your boss can get maximum ROI. They are made overseas for a lot of reasons, including lax laws concerning every aspect of that widget. Employee health/happiness/economic viability--who cares. Enviornment--who cares. Ability to pay taxes--who cares. Who cares as long as it's cheaper. Sometimes the cheapest is not the best for society as a whole?
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    As far as the union jobs you described, its not actually possible to outsource manual on-site performed labor to overseas. Is that really an accomplishment of unions?
    - tunap 10y ago
      Very possible to import immigrants, illegally or through visas, to labor for below market rates.
      - ctlby 10y ago
        If they're willing to labor for those rates, they are "market" by definition.
      - bogomipz 10y ago
        The OP's question was: "of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years?" Not what's possible. Also local trade unions are not really involved in federal immigration policy.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >What's the better alternative? Let's look at the BART. It's one of the worst and most expensive transit systems in the US. It costs $4 to ride it from SFO to the nearest caltrain stop a couple of miles away. Part of the reason is that the train operators can easily rake in 6 figures with overtime for doing something that could easily be automated or made more efficient with centralized control at a minimum. The bay area has given up affordable/useful subways to subsidize a bloated union-based operation. >Personally, I think people in tech will look back, and wish they had some Union protection. It's the one profession I'm shocked hasen't completely moved overseas. You're gravely mistaken if you think unions protect jobs from moving away. Labor costs that greatly exceed the market rate are the primary reason the jobs move elsewhere. >Actually San Francisco has a lot of union jobs, and they arn't moving to China. Oh? Point me to all of the union heavy manufacturing jobs in SF. You will find that difficult because they don't exist anymore. The only union jobs that are left here are ones that have no competition because they are local (e.g. your electrician example).
- pastProlog 10y ago
  Can you name some of the advancements that heirs who have never worked a day in their lives have brought in the US over the last 10-20 years? Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits? The heirs, the parasites who live off the labor of those of us who do work are the ones who have to explain what good their parasitism is doing in this day and age. We who work and create wealth and who organize ourselves don't have to justify our existence to these parasites and their myrmidons. They need us, we don't need them.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    > Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits? You know, you certainly don't have to like entitled rich children of millionaires, billionaires, and industrialists. I certainly don't. But this rant confuses me for a few reasons. First, if we have a system where people are allowed to own capital and that's legitimate, doesn't inheritance just follow? I mean, what's the alternative you're after here without heirs? When Steve Jobs died, should the government have taken his shares and distributed to all current Apple employees? (And if so, according to what formula - proportional to pay? time served? the product of the two? equal division?) And why stop at just the shares - what about the shares of other companies, and his houses and cars and any bars of gold he bought with salaries or shares he'd previously sold? Where's the line? How much is the line? Do we redistribute everything to company employees? What about people who own multiple companies? Or maybe being at the company is no part of it - should the government have just auctioned off his estate for the general fund? Doesn't the government already sort of do that when it collects a roughly 50% inheritance tax? Is that not enough? How much exactly is enough? I could go on... Also, all that notwithstanding, morally: isn't that one of the things human beings work for, a good life for their children and grandchildren? If you respect the original industrialist, can you respect this? (If you don't respect the original industrialist, why are we attacking his heirs?) Second, are they really even all that big of players in the large-corporation ownership scene writ large? Even in the absence of taxes, big inheritances will spread themselves out over several generations unless all rich kids are only children. > They need us, we don't need them. Then quit and found your own company.
huherto 10y ago
What is MSM ? I keep seeing it, google hasn't helped.
- allengeorge 10y ago
  Main-Stream Media

twblalock 10y ago

Unions did a lot for working people. But that's not relevant to the question of whether or not they are on the right or wrong side in this particular case.

hueving 10y ago

"helped in the past" != "helpful now" Burning coal has been a tremendous help to society, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it when we find better alternatives for each of its use cases. Can you name some of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years? Does that outweigh their anti competitive nature that has led to companies moving manufacturing out of unionized areas entirely?

icantdrive55 10y ago
Off the top of my head, try being a non-union Electrician, Plumber, etc. in San Francisco for a day. At the end of that day, you will drop to your knees, and thank god for those lefty unions. At the end of a few years, you just might be able to afford a house. Actually San Francisco has a lot of union jobs, and they arn't moving to China. Personally, I think people in tech will look back, and wish they had some Union protection. It's the one profession I'm shocked hasen't completely moved overseas. What's the better alternative? America is better now because got rid of a lot of unions? Yes--a lot of products are made where your boss can get maximum ROI. They are made overseas for a lot of reasons, including lax laws concerning every aspect of that widget. Employee health/happiness/economic viability--who cares. Enviornment--who cares. Ability to pay taxes--who cares. Who cares as long as it's cheaper. Sometimes the cheapest is not the best for society as a whole?
- bogomipz 10y ago
  As far as the union jobs you described, its not actually possible to outsource manual on-site performed labor to overseas. Is that really an accomplishment of unions?
  - tunap 10y ago
    Very possible to import immigrants, illegally or through visas, to labor for below market rates.
    - ctlby 10y ago
      If they're willing to labor for those rates, they are "market" by definition.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
      The OP's question was: "of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years?" Not what's possible. Also local trade unions are not really involved in federal immigration policy.
- hueving 10y ago
  >What's the better alternative? Let's look at the BART. It's one of the worst and most expensive transit systems in the US. It costs $4 to ride it from SFO to the nearest caltrain stop a couple of miles away. Part of the reason is that the train operators can easily rake in 6 figures with overtime for doing something that could easily be automated or made more efficient with centralized control at a minimum. The bay area has given up affordable/useful subways to subsidize a bloated union-based operation. >Personally, I think people in tech will look back, and wish they had some Union protection. It's the one profession I'm shocked hasen't completely moved overseas. You're gravely mistaken if you think unions protect jobs from moving away. Labor costs that greatly exceed the market rate are the primary reason the jobs move elsewhere. >Actually San Francisco has a lot of union jobs, and they arn't moving to China. Oh? Point me to all of the union heavy manufacturing jobs in SF. You will find that difficult because they don't exist anymore. The only union jobs that are left here are ones that have no competition because they are local (e.g. your electrician example).
pastProlog 10y ago
Can you name some of the advancements that heirs who have never worked a day in their lives have brought in the US over the last 10-20 years? Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits? The heirs, the parasites who live off the labor of those of us who do work are the ones who have to explain what good their parasitism is doing in this day and age. We who work and create wealth and who organize ourselves don't have to justify our existence to these parasites and their myrmidons. They need us, we don't need them.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  > Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits? You know, you certainly don't have to like entitled rich children of millionaires, billionaires, and industrialists. I certainly don't. But this rant confuses me for a few reasons. First, if we have a system where people are allowed to own capital and that's legitimate, doesn't inheritance just follow? I mean, what's the alternative you're after here without heirs? When Steve Jobs died, should the government have taken his shares and distributed to all current Apple employees? (And if so, according to what formula - proportional to pay? time served? the product of the two? equal division?) And why stop at just the shares - what about the shares of other companies, and his houses and cars and any bars of gold he bought with salaries or shares he'd previously sold? Where's the line? How much is the line? Do we redistribute everything to company employees? What about people who own multiple companies? Or maybe being at the company is no part of it - should the government have just auctioned off his estate for the general fund? Doesn't the government already sort of do that when it collects a roughly 50% inheritance tax? Is that not enough? How much exactly is enough? I could go on... Also, all that notwithstanding, morally: isn't that one of the things human beings work for, a good life for their children and grandchildren? If you respect the original industrialist, can you respect this? (If you don't respect the original industrialist, why are we attacking his heirs?) Second, are they really even all that big of players in the large-corporation ownership scene writ large? Even in the absence of taxes, big inheritances will spread themselves out over several generations unless all rich kids are only children. > They need us, we don't need them. Then quit and found your own company.

huherto 10y ago

What is MSM ? I keep seeing it, google hasn't helped.

allengeorge 10y ago
Main-Stream Media