Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as the scab question goes. It's easy to figure out. When a person of a certain skill set sells their labor for less than its worth, this devalues that skill set.
The skill set is not worth less to the laborer or they wouldn't sell it.
And it could be that the union member has been charging too much for his labor. Maybe the strike-buster is getting the true market rate. No way to prove that. But no way to prove it wrong either.
The skill set is not worth less to the laborer or they wouldn't sell it.
And it could be that the union member has been charging too much for his labor. Maybe the strike-buster is getting the true market rate. No way to prove that. But no way to prove it wrong either.
Yes, all that job creation in Texas at minimum wage rates with cut taxes is good for the country and worker.
Why is it that the right loves the speed at which we race to the bottom?
If your employer showed with a day laborer and said the day laborer would now be doing your job for half the pay, would you show the utmost respect for your replacement?
If this did happen do I have the right to intimidate or physically hurt the day laborer in order to deny his right to work? Because that is what the unions believe.
You do realize of course that this kind of stuff does not happen. It makes absolutley no sense for an employer to fire an existing worker to hire someone else at a lower rate in order to save on labor costs.
If you want to take a look at the difference between union labor and nonunion labor, compare the textile mills of the South to comparable industries in the north. The union shops propelled their members into the middle class while the nonunion mill towns left most desitutue if not drowning in debt.
I mentioned this earlier. In the 40s and 50s people moved from the South to Michigan and Ohio to work. And a lot of those jobs were union. That's probably the only example in world history where people left to get get union jobs.
Today it is the exact opposite. People leaving Michigan and Ohio to work in non-union states.
The unemployment rate in union towns like Los Angeles, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Detroit and Toledo is really helping us race to the top.
And unionized Michigan is adding population like crazy while non-union Texas is losing people by the millions.
Well the funny part is that to make up for the tax revenue of 1 Michigan autoworker lost, you'd have to hire 4-5+ minimum wage laborers from Texas.
Not only that, but those people aren't coming out of nowhere. They're just being displaced by lack of government regulation and neoliberal governance patterns.
Last time I checked, Cleveland had an unemployment rate below the national average.
LA, Las Vegas are hardly my first thoughts of union towns. They fell because of the housing boom (and they fell hard) due to the sprawling form left by neoliberal urban growth policies and the shady financing behind them.
Look at other union friendly places: Minneapolis-St. Paul with a metro unemployment rate of 5.4% and a growing population. Higher average wages, too!
How about nonunion Mississippi? Arkansas? THOSE PLACES ARE DOING SO WELL!
In fact, if you look at share of tax revenue contributed/received, Union, liberal states are being leeched off of by majority nonunion states. The only red state to have tax revenue losses due to leeching of nonunion conservative hotbeds is Texas and that's due to the energy industry, not the millions of Americans settling for $8 an hour and no benefits. If that's your ideal job and lifestyle, your "American dream", so be it. It's not mine.
Why did millions leave unionized Europe for non-Union United States???
And why do unions treat the working man "scab" so horribly???
Why do unions claim credit for giving us the 40-hour work week when Endicott-Johnson (non-union) started it in the 1890s? They were the first to help employees with health care costs also. But that never stopped a union thug from claiming credit.
Why are heavily unionized states in the Midwest losing working age people by the hundreds of thousands while the non-union states in the South and West are gaining working age people?
Why is it a comapny like Volkswagon opened a plant in Chattanooga? Chattanooga doesn't have any skilled auto workers available. Detroit has thousands of unemployed autoworkers, supervisors and engineers that are desperate for work. Of course, Tennesseans aren't likely to vote for a union.
Thanks unions. You're actually making non-union folk in the South wealthy. Too bad it's at Midwesterners expense. Good job.
Well the funny part is that to make up for the tax revenue of 1 Michigan autoworker lost, you'd have to hire 4-5+ minimum wage laborers from Texas.
Not only that, but those people aren't coming out of nowhere. They're just being displaced by lack of government regulation and neoliberal governance patterns.
Last time I checked, Cleveland had an unemployment rate below the national average.
LA, Las Vegas are hardly my first thoughts of union towns. They fell because of the housing boom (and they fell hard) due to the sprawling form left by neoliberal urban growth policies and the shady financing behind them.
Look at other union friendly places: Minneapolis-St. Paul with a metro unemployment rate of 5.4% and a growing population. Higher average wages, too!
How about nonunion Mississippi? Arkansas? THOSE PLACES ARE DOING SO WELL!
In fact, if you look at share of tax revenue contributed/received, Union, liberal states are being leeched off of by majority nonunion states. The only red state to have tax revenue losses due to leeching of nonunion conservative hotbeds is Texas and that's due to the energy industry, not the millions of Americans settling for $8 an hour and no benefits. If that's your ideal job and lifestyle, your "American dream", so be it. It's not mine.
Race to the bottom though, as I said.
Los Angeles and Las Vegas are big union towns. California has more manufacturing plants than any state in the country. It's damn hard to get a job in LV without joining a union.
Is minneapolis doing well? Tha's great. Good for them.
Make a trip to Cleveland. They aint doing too well. The place is falling apart.
According to your logic, you think it's better to have no jobs in a union town than lots of jobs in Texas. Thats how you come across anyway.
Working in Texas and not having to pay any state income tax is pure pleasure. Texas being a non-union state is one of the great things about it.
Bingo.
And if wages and conditions were so bad in Texas then it would be unionizing rapidly. It aint. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that non-union is fine.
Union folks can't deal with that so they make up this crap about any job in Texas pays minimum wage. LOLs. That's why people are moving there. To work minimum wage jobs. LMFAO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
