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.
And its funny/insane how you fight against high min wage laws, while at the same time you fight (for) 0% tax rates on dividends, so rich CEO's will have 0% federal tax rates.
But like I said I am for workers and small business, and you are for CEO's and large corporations.
And its funny/insane how you invent stuff about me.
1. I'm not a Republican.
2. I never liked Romney's economic plan.
3. I don't fight against minimum wage laws, I just think they are not necessary since everyone makes more than that rate already.
4. I never said I want 0% tax rate on dividends.
5. I'm not against workers or small business or for large corporations. I work for a company that employers 12 people. And I aint the CEO. I have nothing against workers or CEOs. They both provide valuable services.
6. I have no intention of voting in 2016. unless there is a initiative to outlaw unions or something benfecial like that.
And you sit around praising these large corporations as "the job producers."
But arguably small business creates more jobs than large corporations do.
And small and medium sized businesses, create many more jobs than large corporations do.
These large corporations you love so much, are moving all their US jobs to Asia (so they can pay their workers third world wages, and increase their corporate profits.)
Well, I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't praise large corporations, nor did I crticize them.
And I never said small businesses created less jobs nor did I say large companies were job producers.
So this is a thread that is trying to say that the laws the Repub. in the house and Sen. of Ohio are trying to push through this week (starting today) is OK.
This is after a election which the people of Ohio supported union rights.
Let me say this. Right to work means right to make less.
It gives corp. an unfair advantage when they know that they can pay people and give less benefits.
Only fools and politicians (who have been paid off for the vote,one way or another) would suggest that not having the ability to unionize, if needed , is a good thing.
Perhaps instead you read the history of the labor movement. Prior to the movement workers were exploited - having to work long hours, under often dangerous and unsafe conditions at low pay. The proof that the labor movement was formed to help workers is the fact that they were opposed by factory owners, who often used corrupt and violent methods to suppress labor organization.
Your post is a poster child for ignorance on the subject. Corporations and government did not get together and "allow" unions to form. It was fought by the corporations and the government officials bought by those corporations. Employers mandated that new employees sign yellow-dog contracts, which stated the employee wouldn't join unions. In the early days of the labor movement, people were prosecuted for organizing. It wasn't until workers realized that they had power in their votes to change laws did this stop.
Corporations didn't give up their power out of benevolent feelings, the power was rightfully taken.
Your post is a poster child for ignorance on the subject. Perhaps instead you read the history of the labor movement. The labor movement in the U.S. started to keep blacks and Asians from taking jobs from whites. That was the goal.
If you look at U.S. Census data you will see hours at work, child labor etc.. were all pretty much fixed by 1910 or thereabouts mostly in non-union shops. (though it still went on with new immigrants sometimes). The unions had no power until 1935. Real manufacturing wages jumped 50% from 1860-1890 and another 34% from 1891-1914. Unions didn't have anything to do with it because they were insignificant, both in numbers and power, at this time. Work became safer as technological advances came to fruition. Safer methods were develpoed by non-union engineers.
As Cloward & Piven pointed out, corporations got together with government to give unions legal standing and legitimacy. And they didn't do it to help workers, they did it to help themselves. They easily could've just outlawed unions. It wouldn't have been difficult to do. Govt & corporations had all the power, not workers.
Your post is a poster child for ignorance on the subject. Perhaps instead you read the history of the labor movement. The labor movement in the U.S. started to keep blacks and Asians from taking jobs from whites. That was the goal.
...
I don't know how to respond to a post that's categorically factually wrong.
The labor movement started in the U.S. prior to the civil war when blacks were still slaves and Asians had not immigrated in large numbers. In any case, the movement started in factories, where neither blacks nor Asians tended to work.
What you quoted was false history. Corporations had no reason to get together with government to give unions legal standing and legitimacy. It was contrary to the corporate interests. The labor struggles were bloody and violent, often with factory owners using the police as private armies.
I suggest YOU read: History of the Labor Movement in the United States Vol. 1&2 by Philip S. Foner
Unions are about power. It is necesary to have in order to COUNTER the power of employers. Employers never pay the worth of what is made unless forced to. That is how the surplus of capitalism is created, by underpaying workers.
Man take an economics course not written by the Koch Brothers. Unions have elevated pay rates for all workers and I don't care what school you attended.
Real manufacturing wages in the U.S. rose 50% from 1860-1890 and another 34% from 1891-1914. Union membership was less than 3% and there were no laws giving legal privileges to unions like there are now. How come wages increased more rapidly before unionization?
Why does all of world history prove that workers migrate from unionized areas to non-unionized areas? The only exception is a couple decades in Detroit? If unions were increasing wages for everyone wouldn't people move to unionized areas whether they themselves are union or not? Why do they consistently move to non-union areas?
Your surmisal fails at the outset and house of cards you built around it comes tumbling down.
Firstly you forgot to tell me how the going rate got established at $10.00. Secondly you forgot to include any info as to how a Union automatically got it's workers paid $4.00 more than the going rate that they probably established.
I used $10 as an example. I could have used 20 or 120. Doesn't matter.
Where was it written in your economics course that stipulates that Union shops automatically hire a surplus of welders, while non-union shops therefore decide to work with a shortage? Whaaah? What course taught you that Union shops paying $14 bucks an hour are automatically going to hire more welders than absolutely necessary or as would be necessary to any business making a comparable product. You did not get your money's worth from that course bub.
I said the exact opposite of what you said I said, bub.
I would have dearly loved to have been sitting in front of THAT professor when he was filling your head with this asinine crap.
"Scabs" are what they are and you'll deal with one some day when you take off sick and someone comes around and says "hey I'll do his job for half his pay and after he's better, you make the choice whether or not to take him back on".
Yeah, this happens all the time. lols. I thought you were about workers rights? A scab has the right to work too. He just wants food on the table like you and me. Unions don't care about workers. They care about themselves and themselves only. If they cared about the worker's rights they would care about a scab, as he is a worker too.
Oh wait, have you got sick days and a weekly indemnity plan to cover your azz while off ill? Care to consider who drove the implementation of those little considerations you enjoy?
I get paid for sick days, vacation time etc...The free market drove that implementation. The first large well-known corporation to start the 40 hour work week, sick pay, help with medical was Endicott-Johnson. They were one of the countries largest employers in the 1880s-1890s. Non-union of course. The evil, greedy CEO even testified before Congress and gave speeches encouraging other companies to do the same. Thousands did. All about 4 decades before the unions "fixedd" the problem. lols. It's all a matter of public record, he went before Congress. If people stopped believing what union bosses told them and did sme research and thought on their own they might learn something.
Of course not, your economics professor didn't cover any of that, nor would he if asked. He was part of that elite class you seem to worship at the feet of.
I don't know how to respond to a post that's categorically factually wrong.
The labor movement started in the U.S. prior to the civil war when blacks were still slaves and Asians had not immigrated in large numbers. In any case, the movement started in factories, where neither blacks nor Asians tended to work.
There weren't multitudes of free blacks trying to get jobs in northern factories prior to the Civil War?
I forget exactly when Asians started coming over. Was it the 1870s? But unions kept them out of union jobs.
That's basically what the unions were about. Excluding workers. That's what they are still about. Though it's not based on race as much nowadays but they still exclude workers.
There weren't multitudes of free blacks trying to get jobs in northern factories prior to the Civil War?
I forget exactly when Asians started coming over. Was it the 1870s? But unions kept them out of union jobs.
That's basically what the unions were about. Excluding workers. That's what they are still about. Though it's not based on race as much nowadays but they still exclude workers.
It isn't worth my time trying to inform someone who wants to maintain their own version of history -- one in which corporations thought it was a good idea 'to get together with government to establish unions.'
That last comment is the only one that isn't history rewritten to suit a corporate agenda.
Had there been such a willingness for corporations to provide the niceties you attribute to them, why then did Unionism flourish? People just wanted to pay a portion of their wages to an organization that would promise all the stuff they were being provided anyway? Brother!
You've got a real hate for Labour Unions. Something happen at a job interview you attended that made you bitter?
You do know a very popular axiom among business people is "a company usually gets the Union they deserve".
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.
