Boeing Controversy Surrounding NLRB vs Boeing: Analysis and Opinions

[CAC1001]

If a monopoly emerges as a result of market forces rather than via government intervention, I imagine that process is still a part of the free market. Laws that prevent the formation of monopolies are not free-market forces, are they? They are very clearly government regulations.

I think monopolies, at least in certain industries, are legal, what are illegal are trusts. Having a monopoly doesn't mean a company controls the whole market, just that it controls so much of it, that everyone else just has a scrap. If a monopoly is achieved via market forces, the company is watched closely and is expected to be a good corporate citizen and not try to abuse its position (for example, Bill Gates back in the early 1990s got caught doing this, I forget the details though).

For example, Intel pretty much has a monopoly over the semiconductor market, at least for the types of chips it makes.

 

[CAC1001]

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'. They're equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get their way, unfortunately the parents (businesses) cave in far too often to extreme demands. Skipping work and forcing a school district to totally reschedule their school year is thuggery.

California public unions are especially notorious for these types of tactics.

 

[turbo]

Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

When I was the shop steward on my paper machine, a new reserve (rotating laborer) on my shift asked for advice. His girlfriend worked for a very large retailer, and her manager trusted her to cash up the register drawers. So much so, that she was required to work every night until after closing and cash up all the registers. After-hours with no pay and no overtime. He asked what I would do in this situation, and I told him that if she complained, the store's manager would retaliate. She complained, and the manager cut her hours to the bone for several weeks. Like most large retail chains, they keep the vast majority of their workers on a part-time status (too few hours to qualify for unemployment insurance) so that the employees can be dumped at any time for any reason at no cost to the company. Now, where is the thuggery?

 

[WhoWee]

Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

When I was the shop steward on my paper machine, a new reserve (rotating laborer) on my shift asked for advice. His girlfriend worked for a very large retailer, and her manager trusted her to cash up the register drawers. So much so, that she was required to work every night until after closing and cash up all the registers. After-hours with no pay and no overtime. He asked what I would do in this situation, and I told him that if she complained, the store's manager would retaliate. She complained, and the manager cut her hours to the bone for several weeks. Like most large retail chains, they keep the vast majority of their workers on a part-time status (too few hours to qualify for unemployment insurance) so that the employees can be dumped at any time for any reason at no cost to the company. Now, where is the thuggery?

That's not thuggery - it's ILLEGAL to force an hourly employee to work without compensation. They should have reported the matter to the proper authorities. If taken to court, the employee would be paid for all of the accumulated time.

 

[turbo]

That's not thuggery - it's ILLEGAL to force an hourly employee to work without compensation. They should have reported the matter to the proper authorities. If taken to court, the employee would be paid for all of the accumulated time.

Tell that to Wal Mart employees who are forced to work off the clock and have been quite unsuccessful in getting paid for decades.

 

[WhoWee]

Tell that to Wal Mart employees who are forced to work off the clock and have been quite unsuccessful in getting paid for decades.

http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/

"On October 13, 2006 a Philadelphia jury returned a $78.5 million verdict in favor of a class of current or former employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and SAM’s Clubs) who were forced to miss rest breaks and work off-the-clock in Wal-Mart’s Pennsylvania stores during the period March 19, 1998 through May 1, 2006. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart violated state laws and breached their agreement to provide paid rest breaks and to pay for all time that employees worked off-the-clock. The parties will likely be filing numerous post-trial motions, and Wal-Mart has publicly stated that it plans to appeal the jury verdict.



Court Awards Class Members an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages."

 

[WhoWee]

The US has extensive laws to protect employees.

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/

 

[russ_watters]

Let's back up a bit. When companies want to pressure their workers, they can use spying, misdirection, economic pressure, etc, including shutting down production lines, reducing benefits, reducing hours, and layoffs targeted at "troublemakers". All the unions have in their arsenal is withholding their members' labor. Perhaps they can picket and get some public attention that way, but really they have just a strike or a threat of a strike as leverage. This is not "thuggery" - it is a fact of life.

By "lets back up a bit", you mean "lets forget all my false claims from before"? We already established clearly that the arsenal of tricks that a union has includes considerable actual criminal activity and activity that would be considered criminal if taken by businesses*.

No one said a strike was "thuggery". "Thuggery" (by my definition earlier) is the physical violence and threats of physical violence that unions often use as a means of coercion. In addition, there's the sabbotage, which I consider different from "thuggery", but others may disagree.

You can't just reboot the argument and hope people will forget your previous false claims and the realities that you don't want to acknowledge.

*In addition to general monopolistic practices, unions have sucessfully gotten their monopoly - and failing that, price fixing - written into law in many places. In some places/contexts, you must, by law, use union labor. In others, if you don't use union labor, you have to pay non-union workers the union rate. That's not as altruistic as you may think: the goal is to eliminate the competitive advantage of the competition. Rockerfeller would be dumbfounded at how they have succeed in creating legally required monopolies where he was busted by other laws against monopolies.

Edit: I wasn't quite right about the origin of "prevailing wage" laws. As it turns out, they are Jim Crow laws, first enacted to keep black from stealing jobs from whites who wanted to get paid more. In some places, they have been repealed, but in others they are kept (and occasionally, new laws are passed) as they help the unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act

 

[Char. Limit]

No one said a strike was "thuggery".

Really?

Thuggery is subjective. Personally, I think work stoppages, sit-ins, and strikes count as 'thuggery'.

 

[turbo]

http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/

"On October 13, 2006 a Philadelphia jury returned a $78.5 million verdict in favor of a class of current or former employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (including Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and SAM’s Clubs) who were forced to miss rest breaks and work off-the-clock in Wal-Mart’s Pennsylvania stores during the period March 19, 1998 through May 1, 2006. After a five-week trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart violated state laws and breached their agreement to provide paid rest breaks and to pay for all time that employees worked off-the-clock. The parties will likely be filing numerous post-trial motions, and Wal-Mart has publicly stated that it plans to appeal the jury verdict.



Court Awards Class Members an additional $62.3 million in statutory damages."

Wal Mart has a huge stable of lawyers, including Hillary Clinton's old law practice. They will appeal this award all the way to the Supreme Court, if they can. That money is not forthcoming anytime soon.

 

[WhoWee]

Wal Mart has a huge stable of lawyers, including Hillary Clinton's old law practice. They will appeal this award all the way to the Supreme Court, if they can. That money is not forthcoming anytime soon.

The workers have the US Department of Labor, States Attorney Generals, and the US Justice Department on their side - what is your point - does WalMart have deeper pockets than the US - never mind...

 

[turbo]

The workers have the US Department of Labor, States Attorney Generals, and the US Justice Department on their side - what is your point - does WalMart have deeper pockets than the US - never mind...

Let's see...it has been 5 years and Wal Mart hasn't paid. When do you think they will pay?

 

[WhoWee]

Let's see...it has been 5 years and Wal Mart hasn't paid. When do you think they will pay?

After reading through this Brief - it looks as though the case is far from resolved.

 

[CAC1001]

On corporations like Wal-Mart, no one is claiming that they too don't engage in strong-arm tactics when they can get away with it. Corporations are notorious for bribing government officials (BP being one of the latest big examples), trying to "buy" politicians, skirt around regulations, lobbying to have regulations written that favor them, screw over employees left and right (in the old days, this entailed forcing employees to work in horrible conditions and then hiring thugs to bust up unions), etc...in pointing out the bad things done by unions, no one is saying corporations aren't equally bad.

The difference however is that much of that stuff as far as corporations are concerned has been outlawed. Corporations cannot "buy" a politician, but the unions can to a degree. Corporations cannot create legalized monopolies, but the unions can.

Edit: I wasn't quite right about the origin of "prevailing wage" laws. As it turns out, they are Jim Crow laws, first enacted to keep black from stealing jobs from whites who wanted to get paid more. In some places, they have been repealed, but in others they are kept (and occasionally, new laws are passed) as they help the unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Bacon_Act

The unions like the minimum wage becuase it prices cheaper labor out of the market and protects the union jobs.

 

[WhoWee]

The unions like the minimum wage becuase it prices cheaper labor out of the market and protects the union jobs.

I'd like to hear a supported argument against your summary - well put!

Label this IMO please - On this note, I recently attended a small business breakfast where the hot topic was minimum wage. Several of the business owners in attendance commented they needed extra help but could not afford to pay minimum wage - given lower sales and higher utility costs. Several went on to tell stories about laid off persons and persons no longer or not eligible for unemployment (like salespeople) who have offered to work for less than minimum under the table.

 

[turbo]

The difference however is that much of that stuff as far as corporations are concerned has been outlawed. Corporations cannot "buy" a politician, but the unions can to a degree. Corporations cannot create legalized monopolies, but the unions can.

The nasty behaviors of large corporations have not been outlawed, they have been codified. If your bottom-tier workers are part-time, you don't have to give them any benefits, and you don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes on them. Plus, you can fire them for any reason at any time. That is a huge amount of leverage on a low-paid worker who may be trying to actually raise a family on poverty wages.

 

[turbo]

The unions like the minimum wage becuase it prices cheaper labor out of the market and protects the union jobs.

If you have never been a union official, you might not have much perspective on this. As a union officer, I threw my support strongly behind increasing minimum wages, out of enlightened self-interest, as did the rest of the leadership. If you can keep base-wages livable, then poor families don't have to rely on help from social services, including fuel subsidies, food stamps, health-care subsidies, etc. All of those costs are a burden on other workers that big corporations want to foist off onto average taxpayers. Union workers support livable wages because it's the right thing to do.

The right-wing idea that our society is a zero-sum game in which you can enrich yourself by impoverishing the poor is not logical. Most people can see that if the people who are in the lower-paid classes (and spend most of their pay every week) are comfortable enough to buy goods and services, then the economy as a whole will strengthen, and we will all benefit. Trickle-down is voodoo economics. Trickle-up is a driving force that can pull us out of recession.

 

[russ_watters]

The nasty behaviors of large corporations have not been outlawed, they have been codified. If your bottom-tier workers are part-time, you don't have to give them any benefits, and you don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes on them. Plus, you can fire them for any reason at any time. That is a huge amount of leverage on a low-paid worker who may be trying to actually raise a family on poverty wages.

Turbo-1, for the most part, we only have negative laws in the US. Those things have not been codified, they just haven't been outlawed. And why would they be? You seem to be against corporations having any kind of power at all, even normal economic power.

If you think you can prove they have been codified, please provide evidence.

 

[WhoWee]

The nasty behaviors of large corporations have not been outlawed, they have been codified. If your bottom-tier workers are part-time, you don't have to give them any benefits, and you don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes on them. Plus, you can fire them for any reason at any time. That is a huge amount of leverage on a low-paid worker who may be trying to actually raise a family on poverty wages.

Would this be better for the US workforce?

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2010/10/friday-shoutouts-ohyeahs-and-awesome-accomplishmen.html

I heard on the radio today there are roughly 450,000 workers on the Apple project - additional jobs may be headed to Brazil - where they are toying with $0 taxes on the manufacturing companies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110506/tc_nm/us_brazil_foxconn_1

 

[russ_watters]

Union workers support livable wages because it's the right thing to do...

If you have never been a union official, you might not have much perspective on this. As a union officer, I threw my support strongly behind increasing minimum wages, out of enlightened self-interest, as did the rest of the leadership.

I just plain don't believe that and the tactics and causes I've seen them support don't give me any indication that that's true. Union workers would have to be truly special to be that benevolent. And benevolent people don't resort to thuggery. It's contradictory.

The right-wing idea that our society is a zero-sum game in which you can enrich yourself by impoverishing the poor is not logical.

I doubt there are many on the right wing who believe that economics is a zero-sum game: that's a left wing misunderstanding of economics used (as you just did) to attack the rich!

That issue is one also one of the key liberal misunderstandings of conservatives: If conservative policies are designed only help the very rich, how could middle-class people possibly ever vote for a conservative?

 

[turbo]

I just plain don't believe that and the tactics and causes I've seen them support don't give me any indication that that's true. Union workers would have to be truly special to be that benevolent. And benevolent people don't resort to thuggery. It's contradictory.

You have set up a straw man (tautalogy) to try to make me prove a negative. I assure you that I and the other union officers had to sell our support of increased minimum wages to the membership. You can nay-say all you like, but you have no credibility on this issue, especially when you accuse union members of thuggery.

It is interesting that during our short strike, we were given meeting spaces, parking, and other amenities by a very small private school near the mill, and we reciprocated by helping to rehabilitate some of the unused dorms so that they could be rented out, and repairing brick-work on their classic old library. All of this played well with the local media.

 

[russ_watters]

You have set up a straw man (tautalogy) to try to make me prove a negative. I assure you that I and the other union officers had to sell our support of increased minimum wages to the membership. You can nay-say all you like, but you have no credibility on this issue, especially when you accuse union members of thuggery.

Turbo-1, I certainly can't know/prove what's going on in your head, but you made a claim about how union members in general think. If you can't prove it, retract it. I'm sure you can't see the logic in that union members engaging in thuggery can't be benevolent since you haven't been able to bring yourself to even acknowledge that the thuggery exists in the first place!

It is interesting that during our short strike, we were given meeting spaces, parking, and other amenities by a very small private school near the mill, and we reciprocated by helping to rehabilitate some of the unused dorms so that they could be rented out, and repairing brick-work on their classic old library. All of this played well with the local media.

By the way, the concept of "enlightened self interest" contradicts your claim that you do the right thing because it is the right thing. Enlightened self interest is doing the right thing because it will benefit you. So I guess I would say that at their best, unions do act based on enlightened self-interest (that's not a positive thing). At their worst, they act as thugs.

[edit] By the way, a related concept is unenlightened self-interest whereby people act in a way that they think will be beneficial to them in the short term (myopic selfishness) but turn out to be self-destructive. We've discussed how that worldview has worked out for unions at length in this thread as well.

 

[turbo]

Turbo-1, I certainly can't know/prove what's going on in your head, but you made a claim about how union members in general think. If you can't prove it, retract it. I'm sure you can't see the logic in that union members engaging in thuggery can't be benevolent since you haven't been able to bring yourself to even acknowledge the evidence provided for the thuggery!

I made a claim about how my union worked and operated. You make derogatory generalizations that are insupportable.

By the way, the concept of "enlightened self interest" contradicts your claim that you do the right thing because it is the right thing. Enlightened self interest is doing the right thing because it will benefit you. So I guess I would say that at their best, unions do act based on enlightened self-interest (that's not a positive thing). At their worst, they act as thugs.

We "thugs" were offered (freely) space and facilities on the campus of a private school. If you can support your claim that all union employees are "thugs", bring it on. Are Wisconsin elementary school teachers and social workers "thugs"? Since they brought their children to the protests, it is highly unlikely that they planned violence. Or is your rhetoric drawn from Limbaugh, Beck, and other idiots who need to divide US citizens along artificial lines to suit your beliefs?

 

[WhoWee]

You have set up a straw man (tautalogy) to try to make me prove a negative. I assure you that I and the other union officers had to sell our support of increased minimum wages to the membership. You can nay-say all you like, but you have no credibility on this issue, especially when you accuse union members of thuggery.

my bold

I thought you were a member of management during this event? Also, has total employment dropped at this facility since wages were increased?

 

[turbo]

my bold

I thought you were a member of management during this event? Also, has total employment dropped at this facility since wages were increased?

I was an officer of the union when our strike was underway. And employment in the paper machine department has probably more than tripled since then.

 

[WhoWee]

I was an officer of the union when our strike was underway. And employment in the paper machine department has probably more than tripled since then.

Yes - I went back and re-read. The paper machine department expanded - did plant total employment?

 

[russ_watters]

I made a claim about how my union worked and operated.

Not just your union. You claim to know how union workers in general think:

Union workers support livable wages because it's the right thing to do.

That's the claim I want you to support.

If you can support your claim that all union employees are "thugs", bring it on. [emphasis added]

I've never made any such claim. I claim that a lot of union employees are thugs. Or, in other words, thuggery is widespread. Can you at least acknowledge as a starting point that some thuggery exists?

Is a guy wearing a "dead rats tell no lies" t'shirt "enlightened"? I call him a thug. (2:03)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMzjCdXRLeg

 

[russ_watters]

Is it enlightened self-interest to threaten to get a 16 year old girl fired for not joining a union at her part time job? I call it thuggery. Thuggery on official union letterhead, no less.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-hJU04Kf7Q

 

[russ_watters]

Turbo-1, I'd like to know what word you would use to describe placing a severed cow's head on the hood of a woman's car?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjU8psjeHIQ

Quote from the vid:

The bloody, severed cow's head is a little change from the usual, but the basic campaign of terror is what union officials orchestrate in order to keep employees in line.

And a quick stat from the vid: Since 1990, there have been more than 2000 reported cases of union violence, but the real number is probably a lot higher because most incidents go unreported.

 

[Evo]

When I was in my late teens I started working for the phone company as an occupational employee. The first day the union steward for the CWA (communication workers of America) came to me with a card to sign up and authorize payroll deductions for my dues. I told her no thanks, not interested. From that day forward I was harrassed continually. I was threatened and told to stop doing so much work because the union had spent years convincing the company that it wasn't possible for an employee to do that much work and I was destroying everything that they had been working for, take that as lying to the company because union workers strive to make the most for doing the least.

When the union striked, I continued to work and my husband had to drive me to work because anyone that parked there had their tires slashed, windows broken, etc... He had to drive me up to the door where the security officer would prevent the union goons from obstructing me from entering the building.

Boy, do I have stories about the worthless union non-workers in my office. When I became management it was even worse, I'd go into a union area and they'd all be either standing in groups talking, or watching little tv's at their desks, painting their fingernails, reading magazines, anything but working. And I couldn't say anything, as long as they did the absolute minimum work, which was next to nothing, and the average pay for these people was around $70,000 a year! It was insane.