Globalized Union

[cooper43]

Goose, your reasoning is very sound. I could not have said it better myself.
One question. Are you implying that you are a capitalist, or a person who favors capitalism? Unless you own capital then you are the latter. Perhaps capitalism in a pure form with real competition might favor all but in its current incarnation (crony capitalism) it favors an elite few who do not like to share. They urinate on you and call it "trickle down."
As we all know that due to our fallen nature, no system that involves man is perfect. That includes socialism.To me the ideal would be a blend of capitalism and socialism. With the state controlling key infrastructure (utilities, transportation, etc) and the private sector doing the rest; I believe the Marshal plan provided such a blend and we all know the results of it.

Here Here!!!!!!!right on!!!!!!

 

[cooper43]

A Global Union idea might be a sound idea, until the leaders decide to make it into a global political wing.

I cannot stand the AFL-CIO, I cannot stand the TWU, and cannot stand the belief that any politician is our friend.

The Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech.

The lobbyist with the all the money get what they want, while the rest are just bottom feeders made to believe their vote every 2 or 4 years really matters.

Even with the amount of cash the unions and the AFL-CIO are stealing from our paychecks for political influence, it isn't enough to keep up with those that have unlimited cash to influence politics.

What really should happen is the AFL-CIO should be dismantled, the union political lobby effort should be dismantled, and that money used to form third party, a working man's party. We can beat them at the ballot box, but we will never beat them at the game of who has the most money to influence.

Fact is though, the union leaders have become fat rich cats off of our dime and will never lower their own standards and stop the theft of political influence cash. The greed of continued status quo outweighs the need to change direction and what is right for the laborer.

We are being held hostage by our single issue political views regarding, gun control, abortion, gay rights, wars, christian right views, and thus we are subjected to the shell game the two current parties play to keep things even and the status quo alive. Until a legitimate third party is created to wedge the two party system into real change, the middle class will continue to suffer at the hands of those propagating the current charade against us.

Why is this so simple, yet impossible?

GREED!

Your union leaders are fine with stealing your paycheck and playing the current game with the current rules. Because they too are now rich and could really care less about your well being. Do you really expect them to move in a direction that would risk their wonderful lifestyle to maybe influence improvement in your lifestyle?

Our Union Leaders have joined the ranks of the "have's" while we mingle with the "have not's". Creation of a Global Union will only create more rich union leaders, and I think the intended goal would be claimed to have the working man's best interest at heart. I am not much interested in creating a larger global version of our current worthless labor movement. What is need is a complete overhaul of what we already have.

Very well stated, finally a thread with intellegent people. It is so surprising to me that most people on these threads attack anyone who has a more socialist outlook as being anti American. I am so tired of the spin out of the republican party (also the dems) these days. It is time for us to elect a 3rd party so we can regain some balance. I watch CNBC a lot to keep up with the economy and they speak of Capitalism as if it were a religion. They ignore the plight of working Americans and droll out thier blather about having a free market. We want a fair market, instead of free. I would say it is not free for all of us who are losing our jobs or taking huge benefit and wage reductions. I hope that this coming November we send a loud message that "we are feed up" washington has ignored us and taken advantage of us for far too long and if and when we as a people get enough of it we can vote them out. We should vote out all incumbents. I mean all. Then an only then will they pay attention to us. Just MHO

 

[El Che]

Very well stated, finally a thread with intellegent people. It is so surprising to me that most people on these threads attack anyone who has a more socialist outlook as being anti American.

Stick around, the capitalist lackeys never miss an opportunity to lick their master's boot!
Why do you think we got bumped from another thread?

 

[Jackrla]

I also would be a little skeptical of the question, but let's assume it was sincere.
2500 years ago Aesop wrote a fable that recognized the value of people (in the fable it was bulls) standing united against a common enemy (a lion/beast in the fable).
History is replete with instances where management has taken advantage of workers, particularly when they were unrepresented and unorganized.
Unions, may not be perfect, but they are necessary in many instances to guard against a management that would take advantage of an unrepresented work force.
The problem is when the union hierarchy is more interested in preserving their power than in representing those they represent.
I believe the following question is legitimate to best understand the actual and perceived consequences of no union:
What do you think would happen if employees were not represented and did not have a colleective bargaining agreement?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

What do you think would happen if employees were not represented and did not have a colleective bargaining agreement?

Pay homogenized workers a homogenized salary; pay superstar workers a superstar salary; pay desired workers a desired salary; pay undesirable workers an undesirable salary.

 

[cooper43]

Pay homogenized workers a homogenized salary; pay superstar workers a superstar salary; pay desired workers a desired salary; pay undesirable workers an undesirable salary.

And if you can get away with it pay everyone an undesirable salary. And if they don't like it just outsource their jobs to other countries where it is easier to exploit workers.

 

[El Che]

Pay homogenized workers a homogenized salary; pay superstar workers a superstar salary; pay desired workers a desired salary; pay undesirable workers an undesirable salary.

Homogenized = untermensch?
Superstar = ubermensch?
Desireables? Undersireables? You sound like an eugenicists, Herr Heydrich would be proud. You wanna be capitalists are something else! Then again you're only following your master's lead.
Bush clan and the nazis
Ford and the nazis
GM and the nazis
Not Coke too!!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

And if you can get away with it pay everyone an undesirable salary. And if they don't like it just outsource their jobs to other countries where it is easier to exploit workers.

If the employee were getting an undesirable wage, and could go somewhere with higher pay, the employee presumably would. If the employe cannot, then perhaps the employee is not as desirable of a worker as thought. The market seems to work decently in many sectors. Much of the complaining comes from union workers and/or workforces that are largely homogenized, e.g., those jobs that require little skill and workers are easily replaced. (Before someone jumps down my throat, I am not suggesting your job takes little skill).

Homogenized = untermensch?
Superstar = ubermensch?
Desireables? Undersireables? You sound like an eugenicists, Herr Heydrich would be proud. You wanna be capitalists are something else! Then again you're only following your master's lead.
Bush clan and the nazis
Ford and the nazis
GM and the nazis
Not Coke too!!

Come on, El Che. This sounds very little like Eugenics. You just want to pretend like it does so that you have an opporunity to put in some nifty websites that attempt to show connections with OEMs and the Nazis.

It doesn't even take a paper boy to recognize that some employees are great, some are good, some are OK, some are bad, and some are horrible. Their pay should reflect that. This has nothing to do with selective genetic traits.

 

[El Che]

If the employee were getting an undesirable wage, and could go somewhere with higher pay, the employee presumably would. If the employe cannot, then perhaps the employee is not as desirable of a worker as thought. The market seems to work decently in many sectors. Much of the complaining comes from union workers and/or workforces that are largely homogenized, e.g., those jobs that require little skill and workers are easily replaced. (Before someone jumps down my throat, I am not suggesting your job takes little skill).





Come on, El Che. This sounds very little like Eugenics. You just want to pretend like it does so that you have an opporunity to put in some nifty websites that attempt to show connections with OEMs and the Nazis.

It doesn't even take a paper boy to recognize that some employees are great, some are good, some are OK, some are bad, and some are horrible. Their pay should reflect that. This has nothing to do with selective genetic traits.

You are an advocate of "free market." So called "free market" advocates survival of the fittest. This is economic Darwinism. Darwin was an eugenicist. The fittest are the ones with all the capital and means of influence. The rest of us fall under the unfit category. Are we to just go away?

 

[The Goose]

And if you can get away with it pay everyone an undesirable salary. And if they don't like it just outsource their jobs to other countries where it is easier to exploit workers.

And that, sir, is why unions came into being to begin with. It's rather evident those in the corner offices haven't read all the stories available in history classes re: unions, or if they are reading, calculating a way to use them to their advantage against their workers.

It's also evident unions have degenerated into corporate clones and exist only to serve themselves with the occasional grievance being filed over pay or hours to seem as though the membership is receiving something for their dues payments while actually contributing to the union's function as a Judas Goat.

For those unfamiliar with that term:

A Judas goat is a trained goat used at a slaughterhouse and in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. Judas goats are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and on to trucks. The term is a reference to the biblical traitor Judas Iscariot. from Wikipedia

For another thing we have to contend with, Google the "Delphi Technique". Read and understand the tactics used by the newest 'management' group on the property at TULE, RLG. For a description of the tactics, go to this url:

http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm

We can beat these devils at their own game, but only if all understand the tricks.

 

[DallasConehead]

If the employee were getting an undesirable wage, and could go somewhere with higher pay, the employee presumably would. If the employe cannot, then perhaps the employee is not as desirable of a worker as thought. The market seems to work decently in many sectors. Much of the complaining comes from union workers and/or workforces that are largely homogenized, e.g., those jobs that require little skill and workers are easily replaced. (Before someone jumps down my throat, I am not suggesting your job takes little skill).

It doesn't even take a paper boy to recognize that some employees are great, some are good, some are OK, some are bad, and some are horrible. Their pay should reflect that. This has nothing to do with selective genetic traits.

You don't account for seniority. In airline labor seniority is a critical issue. We are not like superstar baseball players that can take our superstar talents to get the best deal. In your scenario all seniority would be done away with? Or, would we carry all of our seniority to whichever other global airline we go too?

Also, in the globalist scenario, WHO makes the decision as to who is great, good , ok, bad and horrible?

 

[777 fixer]

From the AFL-CIO blog;

July 3, 2008

Yesterday, the United Steelworkers (USW) and Britain's largest
union, Unite, joined together to form Workers Uniting, the
world's first global union The new union draws on the strength
of 3 million members to fight corporate globalization's race to
the bottom that exploits workers in developing countries and
ships jobs out of industrialized nations like the United States
and Britain. Says USW President Leo Gerard, "Only global
solidarity among workers can overcome this sort of global
exploitation."


And here in the airline industry we have no solidarity among unions, heck the unions cant even manage solidarity within themselves-look at the TWU-AA, 21 seperate Locals under one contract. I've heard of Locals having more than one contract but how often do you hear of one contract having 21 seperate Locals? Its a corporate dream-divide and conquer built right into the structure of the union.

Global solidarity is what the Steelworkers are shooting for. Jim Little would rather have us win the race to the bottom.

It sounds like a good idea but as you already pointed out unions can even agree at the local level. If you think everyone else would be one happy family think again. What a work group in one country views as a threat another might view as an opportunity.

Look at the auto industry for example. Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi and even Hyundai have production lines here in the United States. Now let’s say there was a global autoworkers union. Members in Germany and Japan probably view those lines as outsourcing. Those in the USA would view it a bit differently. The dilemma for such a union would be what position to take.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

You are an advocate of "free market." So called "free market" advocates survival of the fittest. This is economic Darwinism. Darwin was an eugenicist. The fittest are the ones with all the capital and means of influence. The rest of us fall under the unfit category. Are we to just go away?

You are stretching big time. A free market uses those that are either unemployed/or paid less than others. It is the stick in the carrot/stick scenario. Unemployment and low pay (stick) gives workers an incentive to not suck; whereas higher pay and promotions (carrot) serve as an incentive for workers to work better.

Where in the world did you get eugenics from my posts? Do away with people? What are you talking about? There are jobs for most lazy and unmotivated people... if they don't care to better their work ethic, then they shouldn't receive the same pay that the motivated, hard working employees receive. My hope --and the goal -- is that the lazy workers will see the carrots being obtained by the hard workers, and start working harder themselves.

Having bad workers in the market is good for the ordinary worker: it makes the ordinary worker look better. Cheers!

You don't account for seniority. In airline labor seniority is a critical issue. We are not like superstar baseball players that can take our superstar talents to get the best deal. In your scenario all seniority would be done away with? Or, would we carry all of our seniority to whichever other global airline we go too?

Also, in the globalist scenario, WHO makes the decision as to who is great, good , ok, bad and horrible?

Why is it a critical issue? Because the union says so? Because the senior employees say so? In many sectors, seniority is desired because it brings additional wisdom, foresight, and knowledge that makes them better workers than less senior employees... in most cases, the pay scale will reflect such additional benefits brought to the table by the senior employee. In other sectors, some senior employees become complacent, lazy, and fail to bring fresh ideas. In some sectors, seniority is less relevant because a less-senior employee is just as capable at doing the same level of work. Should the company be forced to pay this worker much more because they are simply senior? Some say yes; some say no.

The company, in most instances, should be able to decide whether seniority brings additional benefits to the company that should be reflected in the employees pay scale (absent any ADA violations). If the employee feels like he/she is not being paid enough, said employee is free to test his/her theory by looking for other jobs. If the employee is valued more somewhere else, then said employee may take that job where the seniority is more valued.

 

[El Che]

You are stretching big time. A free market uses those that are either unemployed/or paid less than others. It is the stick in the carrot/stick scenario. Unemployment and low pay (stick) gives workers an incentive to not suck; whereas higher pay and promotions (carrot) serve as an incentive for workers to work better.

Where in the world did you get eugenics from my posts? Do away with people? What are you talking about? There are jobs for most lazy and unmotivated people... if they don't care to better their work ethic, then they shouldn't receive the same pay that the motivated, hard working employees receive. My hope --and the goal -- is that the lazy workers will see the carrots being obtained by the hard workers, and start working harder themselves.

Wow, I don't believe you trully understand the nature of what you support. Carrots? Sticks? Now we are asses to be led around? Again, that is the the view of the elite. Your examples reek with condesention and a sense of superiority. Yet since your name is not Rockefeller, Soros or Rothschild, you are one of us. Like it or not.
The free market fairy tale goes like this: Everyone needs to drop their trade barriers, gets rid of their social safety nets (medicine, pensions, etc) and unions, privatize everything ,then all will be wonderful. Manna will fall fron heaven! The reality is that only an elite few get richer and the people get poorer. This is economic Darwinism. These so called "free market" policies have only succeeded when they were enforced by military force. Chile is the prime example. In order to implement Milton Friedman's policies, Pinochet had stage a coup (with the help of the CIA) to remove the elected president, Salvador Allende; then murder/disappear thousands of union leaders, intellectuals, opposition leaders and leftist disidents who opposed the unemployment, high food and utilities cost which the wonderful "free market" brought. Of course the rich got richer. The same occured in Argentina, Brasil, the so called Asian Tigers and Russia.
Again. The so called "free market" is economic Darwinism, and just like social Darwinism it is eugenic in its origin.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Wow, I don't believe you trully understand the nature of what you support. Carrots? Sticks? Now we are asses to be led around? Again, that is the the view of the elite. Your examples reek with condesention and a sense of superiority. Yet since your name is not Rockefeller, Soros or Rothschild, you are one of us. Like it or not.
The free market fairy tale goes like this: Everyone needs to drop their trade barriers, gets rid of their social safety nets (medicine, pensions, etc) and unions, privatize everything ,then all will be wonderful. Manna will fall fron heaven! The reality is that only an elite few get richer and the people get poorer. This is economic Darwinism. These so called "free market" policies have only succeeded when they were enforced by military force. Chile is the prime example. In order to implement Milton Friedman's policies, Pinochet had stage a coup (with the help of the CIA) to remove the elected president, Salvador Allende; then murder/disappear thousands of union leaders, intellectuals, opposition leaders and leftist disidents who opposed the unemployment, high food and utilities cost which the wonderful "free market" brought. Of course the rich got richer. The same occured in Argentina, Brasil, the so called Asian Tigers and Russia.
Again. The so called "free market" is economic Darwinism, and just like social Darwinism it is eugenic in its origin.

This is complete flame at this point, bud.

I fully grasp what I support. I support workers being paid for their hard work!! I support lazy, unmotivated workers being paid less. (you are the one who appears to not truly understanding). It has nothing to do with eugenics.

Lastly, you have mentioned the military force thing at least in 2 separate threads now. You say it as if the capitalist/free trade folks have a monopoly on using military force to induce change. Again, how else are governments or market system (or non-market systems) typically changed? Humans are adverse to change, or more precisely, adverse to the unknown. A quick look into history would demonstrate that such changes are almost always through war, military power, natural disaster, etc. The free-market advocates do not have a monopoly on that.

P.S. It is difficult to have a discussion with you because you only argue against a position that I have never taken. It is akin to me arguing against your position of never trusting anyone over the age of 24. I think your position is bunk. Poppycock right???