The Irony of this Election (Representatives, votes, democrat, Republican)
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.
Not at the public sector level. If you're living in Texas, there's no way you'd have no state income tax if the public sector unions were able to run roughshod over the citizens the way they do here in NY. I'm paying 10% of my income in state and local taxes on a very modest income here in NYC with top earners paying 13%.
I don't think private sector unions are beneficial either (think GM), but at least we're not forced to patronize companies that use public sector unions the way we're forced to pay higher taxes to pay for public sector union workers.
The reason there aren't many good jobs is that there the US is now a horrible place to do business based on taxes, regulations, labor laws, litigation risk, and other factors. Unionizing more workers would increase the cost of labor which would reduce the supply of labor and increase the price of goods/services produced by the unionized workers. There is no way around this.
You are right about New York State public sector unions. Not only is their state income tax pathetic, but their property tax (which pays the bulk of the state workers) is little but legalized theft. Among the highest in the nation. For generally lousy service. New York State highways are among the worst I've seen.
So what you're saying is, countries with strong labor unions can't be competitive?
Labor unions increase the cost of labor which, by definition, reduces the supply of labor.
That's one reason unions are thriving in the public sector but declining in the private sector -- the lack of competition (and forced taxation and ability to increase taxes) allows the unions to maintain their presence in the public sector.
I think they should be prohibited in the public sector as they cause a conflict of interest on behalf of the politicians who should represent the taxpayer but end up representing the public sector unions b/c they're such strong contributors to campaign (monetary and in-kind).
I support allowing labor unions to exist in the private sector but don't think they're beneficial to the companies that use them. With private sector unions, at least we have the option of patronizing companies that do not use labor unions -- no such option exists with public sector unions.
You are right about New York State public sector unions. Not only is their state income tax pathetic, but their property tax (which pays the bulk of the state workers) is little but legalized theft. Among the highest in the nation. For generally lousy service. New York State highways are among the worst I've seen.
Yes -- did you live here in the past? In New York City?
For those of us stuck in NYC, we pay high taxes at the state level and additional income taxes to the City of New York. All so the public sector unions can continue to run the city and state into the ground.
NYC has 3rd world infrastructure and the NYC subway/MTA is an utter embarrassment as compared to its international counterparts such as the London Underground/TfL.
The infrastructure is crumbling here.
In other cities, people talk about s*** on the street and s*** here and there. In NYC, it's not metaphorical or figurative s*** but biological feces that litters the streets. The only unknown is whether it's human, rat, dog, or horse feces on the street.
Labor unions increase the cost of labor which, by definition, reduces the supply of labor.
That's one reason unions are thriving in the public sector but declining in the private sector -- the lack of competition (and forced taxation and ability to increase taxes) allows the unions to maintain their presence in the public sector.
I think they should be prohibited in the public sector as they cause a conflict of interest on behalf of the politicians who should represent the taxpayer but end up representing the public sector unions b/c they're such strong contributors to campaign (monetary and in-kind).
I support allowing labor unions to exist in the private sector but don't think they're beneficial to the companies that use them. With private sector unions, at least we have the option of patronizing companies that do not use labor unions -- no such option exists with public sector unions.
Companies don't "use" unions. A union is a bargaining tool for people to use to try to get the best deal they can get out of a negotiation.
How do you feel about company associations like the chamber of commerce?
Companies don't "use" unions. A union is a bargaining tool for people to use to try to get the best deal they can get out of a negotiation.
How do you feel about company associations like the chamber of commerce?
I'm generally not fond of lobbying and lobbying groups like Chamber of Commerce. I'm very libertarian leaning so I don't support many mandates or bans but I do wonder what life in this country would be like if lobbying were made illegal. My sense is life would be much better without lobbying than it currently is with a robust lobbying industry.
Because lobbyists are exerting such influence over the government (taking advantage of access that people like you and I don't have), I can reconcile the idea of making lobbying illegal.
I support allowing labor unions to exist in the private sector but don't think they're beneficial to the companies that use them. With private sector unions, at least we have the option of patronizing companies that do not use labor unions -- no such option exists with public sector unions.
Labor unions are good because they put pressure on even non-union companies to keep the wages and benefits comparable to union shops. This works because most companies would prefer to be non-union. Without unions, nobody has any leverage.
Does anyone else find it supremely ironic that the support that Sen. Bernie Sanders has managed to attract, the level of enthusiasm and size of his rallies, and the vast sums of small donations he has raised, has come after 8 years of the Democratic administration of President Obama? His message is all about change, the corruption of the system, and the idea that the average American has gotten the short end of the stick. Yet, wasn't that basically Obama's message 8 years ago? Hope and Change? How many of Bernie's fans, the people that flock to his enormous rallies, showed up to Obama's rallies 8 years ago? How did that work out for them?
I really don't see how a Democrat can say with a straight face that the Obama administration has been successful when the most popular Democrat running is actually running against the last 8 (or more) years. What does this say about Obama's legacy? Despite the disarray in the Republican Party due to Trump, Obama basically has presided over the implosion of the Democratic Party. The huge losses suffered by the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 weren't just confined to losing control of Congress. Less publicized was the enormous losses suffered by the Democrats at the state level, in both governors and state legislatures. A whole generation of potential Democratic leaders was wiped out, and despite their almost religious belief in "diversity", the party is largely led by elderly white people.
It's about ironic as the fact that for almost 40 years the Republicans have run as the anti government party. Once elected, its members become viewed as establishment so the rabble looks for someone even more anti to oust them. It's how Trump ended up on the top of the ticket.
Labor unions are good because they put pressure on even non-union companies to keep the wages and benefits comparable to union shops. This works because most companies would prefer to be non-union. Without unions, nobody has any leverage.
Not true at all. Unions just increase the cost of labor which, by definition, reduces its supply.
Try becoming an experienced software engineer and tell me that individuals have no leverage without a union.
Not true at all. Unions just increase the cost of labor which, by definition, reduces its supply.
Try becoming an experienced software engineer and tell me that individuals have no leverage without a union.
I've worked in two different factories these past few weeks, one was heavily unionized, the other is not. In the unionized plant not only were most people compensated well, but they also went to great lengths to prevent hazards and injuries, sometimes it was overzealous, but for the most part I appreciated how seriously they took working safely. It was clean, well lit, well ventilated and almost everybody seemed to enjoy their jobs.
The 2 days I've worked in a very anti-union factory (we are union contractor but barred from displaying any union symbols), I've almost been ran over twice and I'm not exaggerating. It's not for lack of trying to avoid being hit by fork lift drivers including a hi visibility t-shirts, constantly checking behind me and approaching corners carefully. It's also incredibly dirty, very loud, and there is poor ventilation. Remember when we talking about "dirty" we're talking various kinds of metallic and chemical dust, and fumes from melting plastic, not mud.
Just glancing on glassdoor.com I can see that many factory employees had legitimate complaints about how they were treated and the working conditions.
I think it's poor form for people like software engineers be so quick to support the banning or gutting of labor protections simply because they don't have an interest or need for them at their jobs. Unions are generally more efficient at improving working conditions than OSHA, and provide job protection to those that bring up legitimate concerns to management.
Sanders is sincere in his support of labor unions. I see Clinton as a panderer, which makes sense when it seems only union leadership wanted to endorse her, any labor union that polled their members ended up supporting Sanders. I didn't vote for Obama either time, but I can say he hasn't done a whole lot for labor. Increasing the cap for OT for salaried employees might be one of the most significant changes under his administration.
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.
