Boeing Controversy Surrounding NLRB vs Boeing: Analysis and Opinions

[CAC1001]

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.

No it isn't, because you are artificially increasing the price of labor to businesses. If you artificially increase the price of something, you are going to create a surplus of it. By the way, Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage. They claim they do because they "care," but I think the real motive is that they know that it would harm their smaller business competitors (it's easy for a monster company like Wal-Mart to absorb a higher minimum wage, not so easy for your local mom-and-pop).

In addition, what do you mean about "costs that big corporations want to foist onto average taxpayers?" Where is it a corporation's responsibility to provide all that stuff? The job of a company is to make money for the shareholders. It has a responsibility to provide safe working conditions, sure, but otherwise, what it pays people is based on how the market prices their services. In addition to this, how does one define a "livable wage" anyhow?

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 don't know where you're getting that idea, but that is a left-wing socialist idea, not at all any right-wing idea. The right understands that the pie is not fixed, and that you create wealth, that you grow the pie.

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.

We don't have classes in America, we have income brackets. And what you are ignoring is that if you raise the price on something artificially, something else has to give. If you force companies to pay workers more, this hits the dividends for the shareholders, the benefits the company can offer the employees, the employees themselves in that they may have to fire people, and the customers, who have to make due with higher prices. Thus what really happens is one group benefits at the expense of the rest of society.

Trickle-down is voodoo economics. Trickle-up is a driving force that can pull us out of recession.

There is no such thing as trickle-down economics. As pointed out before, the idea of supply-side economics is to increase investment, business growth, and job creation, and yes it can work if the taxes on businesses and investment are punitively high. The immediate beneficiaries of such tax cuts are the employees. If a company hires more workers with the intention to grow the business larger, the employees get paid regardless of whether the business ends up making more money.

Never heard of trickle-up either. IMO, usually the politicians emphasizing "trickle-up" want to do it by first stealing from one group to give to another.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - this is the modern day problem with unions - please remember the US Postal Service is on track to lose $BILLIONS:
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2011/pr11_048.htm

"U.S. Postal Service Loss Widens in Second Quarter
Default on federal payments looming
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Postal Service ended the second quarter of this fiscal year (Jan. 1 - March 31, 2011) with a net loss of $2.2 billion, compared to a net loss of $1.6 billion for the same period in FY 2010."
-----------------
Given this revelation:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/nation/s_727541.html

"The Postal Service and one of its largest labor unions have reached agreement on a 4 1/2-year contract that would give raises to about 205,000 workers but force them to pay more for their health insurance. "
------
IMO - There is no sense of reality with these negotiations with the Government. If a non-Government company is losing money - they can't give wages - they will cease to exist. A business is supposed to be an on-going concern - like a human - survival is a basic need.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

Wow!

 

[WhoWee]

Wow!

Sounds like the Great Lakes Region - typical in my experience - again IMO.

 

[Char. Limit]

I belong to a union. I do my best to get as much done as possible, as does everyone else in my store. So I don't see where you're coming from that "union workers strive to make the most for doing the least", at least not in all situations.

Or maybe we're just that awesome up here.

 

[WhoWee]

I belong to a union. I do my best to get as much done as possible, as does everyone else in my store. So I don't see where you're coming from that "union workers strive to make the most for doing the least", at least not in all situations.

Or maybe we're just that awesome up here.

I'm going to go out on a limb with this Char - you said "store" - I'll assume there is interaction with the public? IMO - that makes a difference.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm going to go out on a limb with this Char - you said "store" - I'll assume there is interaction with the public? IMO - that makes a difference.

Yup. I basically spend every working hour in the public eye. As do most of the grocery workers... hell, my brother recently got promoted to assistant store director.

 

[Evo]

I belong to a union. I do my best to get as much done as possible, as does everyone else in my store. So I don't see where you're coming from that "union workers strive to make the most for doing the least", at least not in all situations.

Or maybe we're just that awesome up here.

There are people that are in unions that don't have the union mentality. Sounds like you don't have a group that wants to get paid for doing nothing. It's possible, but when you work in some industries that have unions like the CWA, it's a lost cause.

 

[WhoWee]

Yup. I basically spend every working hour in the public eye. As do most of the grocery workers... hell, my brother recently got promoted to assistant store director.

That's what I figured. A manufacturing environment is a little different. You have management people (them) and workers (us) and Union Reps and Safety Officers and QA Inspectors - coupled with very little outside influence. Next, add to that mix an assembly line, perhaps loud noises, lot's of rules and boredom - then a grievance. It's a formula for disaster - again IMO.

 

[Al68]

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.

Can you name and source a right-winger with such a position? That's a rhetorical question, I know that you will not. But please feel free to continue as if such absurd nonsense were substantiated fact.

Trickle-down is voodoo economics.

The most fraudulent economic strawman ever invented by the left, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in this forum. But please feel free to argue against the nonsensical strawman, instead of the opposing positions actually presented.

Whether you realize it or not, your repeated failure to offer any legitimate argument against actual right-wing economic positions essentially concedes them to us.

 

[Al68]

...enlightened self-interest (that's not a positive thing).

I think Adam Smith and John Locke (major Enlightenment leaders) would beg to differ (assuming no force or fraud is used).

 

[russ_watters]

I think Adam Smith and John Locke (major Enlightenment leaders) would beg to differ (assuming no force or fraud is used).

I didn't say it can't create a functional economic system, but it isn't a positive moral position (it is at best morally neutral), which is what turbo-1 was trying to convey. He contradicted himself when he said union members do things because they are right rather than doing them because they benefit themselves.

 

[mege]

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?

In many states a union forces/pushes/requires any employee within its scope to be a due paying part of its membership because supposedly that employee is 'benefiting from all the union activism has done in the past and will benefit from all the union will do in the future.' But union members are allowed to separate themselves from organized negative incidents? This is the exact reason many support right-to-work situations in states. If a worker can decide their level of involvement, the union's true power can be established and can be manipulated by making sure its policies and actions are in line with what the workers actually want. As it stands the unions cannot do any wrong because there is no recourse in many situations. Workers cannot leave the union and keep their status quo job. They are forced to either 1) quit their job or 2) dissent openly (and take on shame from their zombie coworkers). So it creates a snowball effect of limited accountability internally to the union. They control their memberships jobs and can do so amorally because of zero meaningful feedback. The extremists within the group are not kept in check by the moderation that would come by a control of choice (ie: voluntary participation).

All that being said, I don't think that everyone with a UAW patch on their shoulder is a thug. However, I do believe that many turn a blind eye to the negatives that their fellow union members, union leadership and organization perpetrates because they provide short-term job stability and fear shame if they dissent. I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that every union member is an evil-doer, but there does come a certain responsibility that is not being (openly) felt by the union membership as a whole. I understand not wanting to rock the boat and not stick out (as unions are definitely against freethinkers and overachievers as is proven by 'solidarity'), but there comes a point where you need to take responsibility for what is being supported by your dues.