*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, December 14th, 2012 7:39am PST - promote requested by radx.

*controversy *politics

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Politics) - requested by MrFisk.

Bra-fucking-vo!

And the result? I'm sure the republicans saw reason and fairness when presented to them surely.

*quality *talks

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Being forced to join a politically active organization just to have a job. That's not freedom, it's fascism.

Had to down-vote that comment. Sorry.
It's, at best a completely uninformed comment, at worst, it's words meant for trollin'.

A Union is not an organization to force people to join so they can have a job.
A Union is a collective bargaining unit and a consolidation/solidarity of workers banded together to fight for fair working conditions and pay.

Members of said bargaining unit pay dues to pay for legal costs and pay strike pay incurred during a dispute. Eliminating these systems will definitely result in the degradation of workers rights and fair compensation. Corporations don't care about workers, only the bottom line.

Workers who do not pay into this system should not be benefiting from the work of the paid legal representation provided by the worker assisted unions who have fought to establish and fight for better conditions without helping to fund or pay into that system.

Please take your plight of Fascism to a fight where it has merit.

Who decides what is fair working conditions and pay? I draw your attention to the recent Twinkie debacle where the Bakers Union was unwilling to accept a pay cut and benefit decrease to a 25 dollar an hour semi-skilled job. I've worked in a highly skilled computer field for 20+ years and it was at least 10 years before I made that level of pay and benefits, plus my 'pension' was a 409k plan.

In truth, Unions came about to counter practices such as monopolies, anti-competition agreements, and general mistreatment of unskilled to semi-skilled employees during the Industrial Revolution. Since then we have enacted numerous laws, which in all fairness many of which were furthered by the early unions, that have eliminated most of these practices. Unions now are simply a form of Socialism in which unskilled to semi-skilled employees, such as the ones in the aforementioned Baker's Union, are able to manipulate wages to a level that is anti-competitive and prevent non-union workers from replacing them.

In the United States, the outsourcing of labor has been partially driven by increasing costs of union partnership, which gives other countries a comparative advantage in labour, making it more efficient to perform labour-intensive work there. You cannot justify paying extreme wages and benefits to people with minimal skills that can be easily replaced. Corporations have duties to their customers and shareholders that go beyond protecting laborers that can easily be replaced.

i'm from upper michigan. I worked for a union. We can't get rid of the lazy shitty workers. Let people work. We got the short end of the stick from lower michigan. The -trolls- have the majority and the yoopers suffer.

Until you understand & live by 'honest day work, for honest day pay' There are so many union workers doing the minimum working, because that is all that is required of me.

When I work for someone, I give them my best everyday. I want them to do better, because I believe they can do better. I'm so sick and tired of the lazy here in this state. I really like unions, but they have f'ed up the system so bad. I support this bill.

^ I've been in a union for near twenty years now. I'm sorry the company you worked for was so lax towards their employees and what they expected of them. Mine isn't, and people are hired and fired if they can't cut it. We get excellent medical and dental and earn more than non-union shops in the same industry.

You really like unions, but you support this bill? That's like talking out your mouth and your ass at the same time. You have a problem with lazy people, huh? And your solution is to get rid of unions? There's a guy like you in every shop. Doesn't have the seniority for a choice bid, so he hates all the "lazy" fucks he has to work with that have already put in their time (years) working the shitty bid you're stuck with. The problem isn't unions. It's companies who treat their employees like inmates, and hero co-workers like yourself who nobody wants to work with anyway. You really like unions? You have no fucking clue what they are and what they have done for you and the middle class in this country. You should be thankful they earn enough disposable income to cross the bridge and spend their money up there.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, December 14th, 2012 7:39am PST - promote requested by lavoll.

Thanks for promoting the vid. But much more important to me -- thanks for promoting this comment stream.

They pretty much do force you to join to have a job. In PA, you have to pay the dues in a union shop regardless if you join or not. It's state law. The only other option is to give the equivalent of the dues to a charity of the union's choice and in the union's name. They lawyered their way around the 'closed shop' laws years ago.

So I'm curious -- those who don't join the union -- do they get the same wages as their co-workers? Or are they paid a different amount, with different benefits?

I've never worked for a union, so I don't know these things.

The union negotiates the wages for all regular employees through contract. The company can only set wages for management and a few other tech positions. An employee who refuses to join gets same pay, but doesn't get any grievance rights and can be fired w/o much hassle. I joined just because it seemed silly not to.

According to a recent WSJ article on political spending by Unions (estimated to be about $700 million in 2011), 92% went to the Democratic party. Regardless of the type of work I want to do, I should be free to work for an employer without the constraint of mandatory membership in an organization. If you WANT to join a Union, then fine, more power to you. You shouldn't HAVE to join. Explain why I should HAVE to join.

And I do think it a bit fascist to not tolerate other ideologies. With mandatory membership, and the political bias of the Labor Unions, it's "if you want to work here, you're contributing to the Democratic Party."

"Price. A fair price. That's not what you say it is, and it's not what I say it is. It's what the market will bear."- Leonard Smalls

OK,
They don't force you to join so you can get a job.
If you are going to join a unionized workforce, yes, you need to join, but there is nothing from stopping you from working at a non-union job for less pay down the street.

I am not a defender of all unions. There are many unions out there and I can't have the facts on all of them.

I have been in the workforce since I was a teenager in high school. I've worked a lot of jobs. All of them non-union. Not once did I have a wage that kept me above poverty. And these jobs were considered decent jobs. I never had a paycheck more than $12-13/h and Never did I have a job where I felt secure in my future.

My current job is the first job I've ever had that was unionized. I make about $22/h. Not an amazing paycheck for my line of work, definitely lower than in the public sector, but my job feels secure and I have a decent benefits package so I know my job will take care of my family.

I come from a northern town where forestry is the main industry. Mill jobs are all Union and it's a decent living. Most young people who start at the mill never leave because they just can't get that kind of pay anywhere else. To do so is to take a drastic cut in pay. I'm not talking a rich man's paycheck. I'm saying they can buy a house, feed their kids, buy a quad and go camping and fishing in the summer. Not extravagant but nothing to complain about.

Now, those mills like to restructure and cut and skimp and save money left, right and center. They run three shifts a day and they NEVER shut down. (OK, they shut down once a year at run-off but that's when the equipment gets serviced).

These mills make profits in the millions/billions for their shareholders. Don't you think for one second that without the unions, the Mills would cut salaries, skimp on safety and eliminate job security while slashing benefits. Everyone working those mills benefit from the presence of the union. They all pay dues, NO ONE complains and it's never been an issue. Ever.

If you don't want to be a union worker, you get a job in town at 1/3-1/2 the pay and no job security. No one holds a gun to your head and tells you where to work. But if you want to get a job with a pay check you can raise kids on, then let the union stand behind you and defend you.

As I explain above, you don't have to join. Just go to a non-unionized workforce and get a job. Your problem is solved. You will make less money without job security, but you don't have to join anything.
Your welcome.

As for the political spending, I assume the union is going to support the party that is going to do the most to support those workers. It's like a super pack

Also, In Canada, we don't have the corrupt bribing system the US has in place for political parties.

I cannot speak to the laws in Canada, but in the US companies are required by law to provide as safe a work environment as possible. The unions did help to put these laws into place many years ago, but the laws are there now.

In your example, you clearly show that young, untrained people are able to make almost double the amount you did up until your recent job. In addition to this, they have very good job security and benefits. This is great for them, but as you said, if you don't want to support the union due to your own beliefs, you are going to be forced to work somewhere else. It does not matter if you are more skilled or a harder worker, simply because you are unwilling to join a union.

You also lay the blanket claim that the workers benefiting from these socialistic practices are not affecting the profit of the company in anyway, nor the output to the shareholders. You do not mention the costs passed along to the consumer of the final products, but lets overlook that for a second. You do not have the figures to show that the shareholders are making millions or billions, nor do you appear to have a basic understanding of what profits a shareholder gets from the net profit of a company. Typically the main profit a shareholder gets is the value of the stock increasing, not dividends paid to them from the net profit. Stock can increase in a union-based company, but it typically does so at a slower rate than a non-union company. This can also affect the solvency of the company, as it is harder to get loans or sell more stock when it is such a slow return.

Now to go back to the point I mentioned about the passing on of costs, the people primarily subsidizing your example employees are the people buying the products that they produce. Companies prefer to pass on these costs to the consumer if they can, simply because the nature of a corporation is to show a profit. No profit or small profits lead to the situation I mentioned above with the stock price and the desirability of the stock. So customers are paying for these extra wages, and may be forced to do so for some time, UNTIL products come in from non-union companies and undercut the price. Then you have a crashing stock price and or closing of the company, all because of an anachronistic union catering to unskilled or semi-skilled employees.

The simple point is, unions provide job security that should not exist in the type of jobs they typically are involved in. They provide wages and benefits far higher than those type of jobs should generally have. This is great for the people in the union, but not so great for everyone else. Nor is it sustainable in today's global economy, because unless your government closes it's economic borders to imports, there will be another country that will do the work for FAR less and undercut your product.

The "global economy" is the wake up call everybody in the US is thus far ignoring. You aren't competing, necessarily, with the guy down the street, or the workers in another State anymore. In the modern economy the US is competing against workers who are willing to work harder for less pay. You can ride your Hostess Twinkie Union to unemployment, or you can "work for less", as the mantra goes.
"All that corporations care about is the bottom line" is another mantra I love. These aren't charities. The term "corporation" is thrown around like it doesn't represent a person, or group of persons, that are trying to advance their lot in life. It's not out of a sense of altruism that the baker bakes his bread. All that being said, workers deserve a safe workplace. That should be accomplished through legislation, and it has been.

The other aspect of forced Union membership that bothers me is the interference it places on the individual's rights for free trade and commerce. If I want to trade 3 pigs for a wagon that my neighbor has, and we both agree it's a square deal, then we should be allowed to transact. If the neighboring farmers nix our deal, because they think their pigs are worth 2 to a wagon, then they should be the ones to go find the market that suits their estimate of value.

Everyone is in such a hurry in this race to the bottom. Never was there a middle class in America, nor will there be, without union labor. But hey, who wants to stand in the way of record profits for those hard working billionaires/job creators?

Plenty of corporations make political contributions to either party, and if you work for those corporations, you're indirectly supporting those political contributions whether you like it or not. It's the same thing with unions.

For unrelated reasons, I favor campaign finance reform such that only real homo sapiens persons (not corporate or union entities) are allowed to make political donations, up to a maximum of $200 per person.

@snoozedoctor asks: "You shouldn't HAVE to join. Explain why I should HAVE to join."

You clearly are a capitalist who believes in paying for what you get. To get union wages and union benefits, you HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. You don't want an union job or union benefits, then go work for the non-union shop. You have absolute free choice in the matter.

Otherwise, you would be a freeloader, right? Getting something for nothing? Can't have that now, can we?

@Mordhaus
I do understand what you are saying and I am hearing your point.
But I still think my point is being missed.

Without that union, everyone would be making $10.50/h, with no job security or benefits. Period. That's my point. If anyone thinks corporations will pay it's employee's an upper wage for no reason when they can keep it for themselves then they're wrong.

Upper management will make six-figure or higher wages while the workers would make min wage and be kept below poverty. Why do you think the unions exist in the first place?

... and there beings the downward spiral and everyone looses in the end.

I've been called worse than capitalist. I do have choice, and that's where I'm privileged. Many people don't though. There are still many areas where Unions monopolize the work force such that people have no choice but to join, if they want to work in a particular manufacturing sector, or similar. I think it's pretty much a moot point anyhow. Half the States have right to work laws and others will follow. The root causes of lack of competitiveness of US manufacturing globally; escalating costs of healthcare, liability, regulatory compliance, etc. aren't being addressed. With fixed labor costs in the US, companies have 2 choices, lower labor costs (common) or raise consumer prices (uncommon). It's a conundrum, Unions or no Unions. The anti-competitive nature of Unions will make them less relevant. The model doesn't work as well when workers have a choice whether they join or not.

I'm on board with this.

@snoozedoctor, I don't think being a capitalist is a dirty word. It doesn't have to be, at least. I was just trying to talk to you from your own worldview.

As far as not having a choice to go to a non-union shop -- well, tough beans. There are plenty of places where there is no union shop option. So that logic doesn't hold water -- just sounds like whining at not getting your own way exactly the way you want it.

Capitalists don't whine. Capitalists put on their big kid underwear and act.

And so we reach agreement, finally. I'm with you.

If anyone thinks corporations will pay it's employee's an upper wage for no reason when they can keep it for themselves then they're wrong.

There's plenty of industries where there's competition for workers, and companies are forced to pay higher wages to retain them. Where unions tend to increase wages is where there isn't competition for a type of labor.

And you're vulnerable to the same argument you're making. If you don't like what a company is offering for pay, or how dangerous your job is, just go find another one? The answer is that's not always an option. That's why unions came to be, and similarly, a lack of options can also make unions a big negative for some workers. My dad's union was a huge negative for him through his career, but there a government monopoly in his field so he had no choice. That monopoly and union broke up in the last few years before he retired - he made triple his wage, while many of the co-workers he'd carried for years couldn't find work.

Yes it's worth understanding what unions have done (and continue to do) for many workers - but they're not always a force for good. They reduce choice, consume resources, and open the door to negative politics and corruption (this is what hurt my dad, he could do his job but couldn't play the political games).

If anyone thinks corporations will pay it's employee's an upper wage for no reason when they can keep it for themselves then they're wrong.

I see this bizarre, absolute anti-corporatism everywhere right now, and
it's not just wrong and misinformed, it's poisonous. Lots of companies see success by paying their workers more, voluntarily, and reaping the benefits of having workers compete to work for them, value their jobs, and generally be better employees. Compare Costco and Walmart. There isn't only one way to corporate success, and many, many companies understand this. Reactionary anti-corporatism is as naive and wrong as blind corporate fealty.

But if you imagine that employment is a perpetual battle, instead of a mutual beneficially relationship, you are writing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ah, what a refreshing discussion. Kudos to @snoozedoctor, @jmzero, and @Mordhaus.

Too bad you have been trolled, your wise comments and discussion promoting to numero uno a terrible video showcasing the opposite political opinion.

I'm guessing most viewers will just stop at Sagemind's mindlessly upvoted rant, and won't bother reading better dissenting arguments that follow it.

Well, that's videosift for ya!

No offence taken at these guys. I can understand the individual's desire to get the best wage they can. It's human nature. And therein lies the socialist principle. It's a philosophy contrary to human nature. I work in a field where Unions are illegal, and rightfully so, because it would lead to price fixing, monopolistic practices and it would be generally contrary to the public good. The same is true for labor unions. It's legalized monopoly and price fixing of labor and contrary to the public good as it either increases consumer prices, or makes US products less competitive, either forcing businesses to shut down (like Hostess), or ship jobs overseas. But, Unions aren't the greatest evil for US labor costs. Like I pointed out before, the cost to business of employing people here continues to escalate for the previously mentioned reasons. Healthcare in particular has to be reformed, and I don't mean the new healthcare legislation. It does nothing to rein in costs and, instead, will increase labor costs. Note the number of businesses that are already limiting worker's hours to make them ineligible. That's progress? Don't get me wrong, I'm for healthcare for all, but it has to be affordable. How can we justify spending double per capita on healthcare what the rest of the developed Nations of the World do? Unsustainable and it's growing leaps and bounds by the year.

I listened to my conservative brother grouse about the terrible unions for decades. He is a highly educated, highly skilled ex-military pilot with a masters degree in aerospace engineering.

And then he got his dream job, doing exactly what he wanted on a military contract, teaching Air Force pilots to fly a new plane in a simulator.

He was in hog heaven, making great money doing the thing he loved.

Then he found out that the wages he was getting paid were "low for the area." The "prevailing wage" was much higher.

He was thiiiis close to being the union shop steward.

When I mocked him (I had to, mean come on!!!) about joining a union, he said -- you don't understand. We have some government agency negotiating our contract and they did a crappy job.

Yeah, so, what you are saying is you want to band together and get a better wage? As a group? You want to have some power?

It still cracks me up. The side benefit is -- he can never ever grouse about unions again. Because when it was HIS paycheck, suddenly he got all socialist.

Because it isn't socialism -- it is the height of capitalism, really. Except the "capital" isn't money, it is information and time and skill of the worker.

I do not understand why labor is held as such low regard, while we all bow down to the God of Capital. It is such a one-sided way to look at a complicated, entwined economic system. And as I said above, it will be death of corporations. They need healthy prosperous workers as part of the engine of the economy.

Nothing is perfect in this world. But the vilification of labor is a bad bad thing.

@bareboards2 you make a good point, the villification of labor is very bad, I would also add that it's as bad as the villification of profit.

What really should be villified is government stepping in to solve issues with laws.

In a truly free market, unions, cartels, consumer groups, certification services (and many other kinds of associations and corporations I couldn't even begin to imagine) would each fight freely for their own special interests, as long as they didn't recourse to laws and force, which often lead to more problems and injustice. That's the real issue here.

There's a difference between being against unions, and being against unions that use government to get their way with one-sided laws, because the latter is what locks down the labor market imposing all kinds of hidden costs on society.

I agree with you. I hope no one is out to vilify labor, if they are it's short-sighted. The most successful companies have figured out how to work cooperatively with their labor, offering incentives for performance, and at the same time having the flexibility to jettison poor performers. An advisarial relationship between managment and their labor force is never a good thing in the long run. The "prevailing wage" argument is ubiquitous, whether Union or not. And, it extends right up the management ladder to the CEOs. This has led, IMHO, to compensation committees valuing CEOs at ridiculous levels. "But", they say, "it's the going rate." In the World economy "prevailing wage" will only protect those jobs that can't be exported, and that doesn't include most manufacturing. The "prevailing wage" in China is much different than in California. So, there go the jobs.

If shareholders had the guts to vote out entire Boards of some of these public companies that award excessive CEO compensation, maybe things would change. I think they are too afraid of what it will do to the stock price and their own investment. Another conundrum.

@renatojj I agree that the vilification of "profit" is also bad. I roll my eyes all the time at silly stuff I read that uses the word "profit" like the very word is sin incarnate. After all, wages are the "profit" of your labor, right?

Everyone wants theirs. I'm so tired of the finger pointing. It's always the other guy, for some people.

And. The pursuit of profit by shipping jobs overseas, @snoozedoctor, is short sighted pursuit of profit at the expensive of the health of our society. And our environment -- cheap goods means more crap in the landfill, more wasted resources.

It is a complex topic that cannot be solved in soundbites and protest banners. And the sooner we can step back from an "adversarial" relationship, the better, yeah?

I hesitate to say this, because I haven't researched it and I suspect it is unconstitutional...

CEO salary could be limited by law as a factor of the lowest wage paid. Minimum wage times 100? 150? It could be a huge number that galls, and still be less than they are awarded now.

It's like sports stars salaries -- it isn't "prevailing wage" -- it is ego and dick size. I'm the biggest on the block, I'm the best, so I should get the most.

That can never be legislated away though. Testosterone has had an evolutionary advantage for us humans for thousands of years. Not so much now that we aren't hunter-gatherers anymore.

Yeah, there's no current legal way to cap CEO's salaries. It's a societal expectation, I suspect. Japan has plenty of public companies and their CEOs are paid a fraction of what US CEOs make. I think it's a matter of upper management deciding you're not worth it. Sports figures have the advantage of knowing how much money they generate, which is a huge sum. If the fans are willing to pay for the tickets and TV networks pay for the rights, why shouldn't they make a ton? They're not worth it, IMHO, but can't argue with their drawing power. They're gonna make someone a ton of money.