Saturday, July 16, 2011
Throw Out the Little Ones, Pan Fry the Big Ones (Apologies to Steely Dan)
Earlier this summer, Connecticut's new Governor, Dan Malloy, and the leaders of the state employees union got together and agreed to bell-ringer/landmark deal. The new Governor was actually able to extract 1.6 billion in concessions from the unions and, along with some other tough measures (additional cuts and SOME revenue increases), was essentially able to close Connecticut's 3 billion dollar budget shortfall (that's a huge deficit for a small state, folks). It was absolutely incredible and, yes, for the first time in a long time, I was proud to be a nutmegger (I mean, really, other than the UConn men and women......)...............................................................................................It kind of sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? Yeah, well, guess what - it was!!!!! When the measure was put up to a vote by the union rank and file, the rank and file voted it down. Yep, that's right, folks, the state employees union of Connecticut told the rest of us that they simply wouldn't sacrifice - PERIOD!! THAT, they said, would be for the rest of us poor slobs to do. The next step for Mr. Malloy? The poor bastard has to now lay off over 6,000 state workers. Hot fun in the summertime, huh, me-bucks?.......................................................................................................P.S. As a former state employee myself, I know exactly what happened here. The 20-30 year workers (and, believe me, there are many) decided that they didn't want to lose any of their cakey pay and benefits. They decided instead to throw all of their younger (and, yes, for the most part, more productive) "friends"/colleagues under the buss. It's what they basically do every time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
This sounds like a case where the union leadership negotiated, really negotiated, not posturing, with the government and made some real compromises. The union leadership did their job. The union members, unlike members of a corporation, go to vote on the actions of their leadership, unlike members of a corporation. The union members decided they did not like the decisions the union leadership made, and voted them down, unlike the members of a corporation.
Sound like real democracy in action, to me, unlike a corporation.
and Here is union labor at work.
Chrysler is heavily unionized, and as a direct result of this situation builds the lowest quality cars and trucks in the US (according to Consumer Reports, year after year). You can be sure that if the company tries to crack down on these dangerous slobs, the union will be there to keep them on the factory line (just as the teachers' union fights to keep teachers who rape children still in the classroom).
jerry: "The union members, unlike members of a corporation, go to vote on the actions of their leadership, unlike members of a corporation"
Considering that from 30% to 60% of workers in union don't even WANT to be in the union, you can't say that the union leadership acts in the interest of the members.
Make union membership voluntary (worker choice) and then you will see legitimate representation.
"Sound like real democracy in action, to me, unlike a corporation."
Democracy is for running government, not our private affairs.
I didn't say the union leadership was acting in the interest of the union members. In fact, in this case it appears that they were not. The union members did not support the leadership's actions.
If more the 50% of the union members don't want the union, they can vote out the union. More democracy in action, unlike a corporation.
"If more the 50% of the union members don't want the union, they can vote out the union."
Do you support, then, the idea of having periodic certification elections (say, every four years)?
Of course, the best solution is for union membership to be entirely voluntary. Then the union won't be bullying anyone, and will be completely responsible. As those who don't like it will refuse to pay dues.
"More democracy in action, unlike a corporation."
Again, democracy is for controlling government, not our private lives. Why should guests in a place be able to vote on how it is run? Do you think if you get 5 customers in a 7-11, they should be able to vote on milk prices?
The same goes with ridiculous laws that give guests in a workplace the "right" to vote on how to run it. People who have no qualification or experience to make management decisions.
Your examples make no sense.
What makes no sense is the idea that guests in a private place (including people paid to do a specific task at a company) have some sort of 'right' to get involved in management decisions, whether or not they have any real qualifications to do so. It's not their company, after all.
This seems to go against dmarks' claim that the goal of Union bosses is to bankrupt their employers. Union leadership approved the new contract.
According to what I read "SEBAC has opened a review of their by-laws to see if they can lower the contract approval threshold from 80 percent, which would make it easier for employees to ratify the existing plan if there's no better alternative".
Will's claim that 80 percent of the union members are 20-30 year workers seems a little high to me.
Another factor Will may have overlooked (in his virulent desire to union bash) is that Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy's income tax bill favors the rich. And "it places Connecticut's deficit on the backs of the middle class".
The real problem may be that Dan Malloy is the wrong sort of Democrat.
Calling a worker a "guest" is truly Frank Luntz Conservative doublespeak at it's finest. dmarks can certainly be congratulated for his mad dissembling skilz, if for no other reason.
WD said: "Calling a worker a "guest" is truly Frank Luntz Conservative doublespeak at it's finest."
I am being straightforward and accurate, and this has nothing to do with Luntz. You don't like what I am saying, and can't counter it with any sort of logical argument, so you use the hollow "doublespeak" insult, as well as "dissembling".
A guest is a visitor. Of course workers are not guests in all situations. Only some. A worker in his own house is not a guest. Nor is a worker who is in a place of business that he owns (such as a small business owner; they work very hard). But the word "guest" DOES fit for those who are visiting another's property. They certainly aren't owners.
----------------
WD: "This seems to go against dmarks' claim that the goal of Union bosses is to bankrupt their employers"
Goal? Hardly. A much better way to state it is that union bosses so often get greedy, and make demands on excessive pay that have nothing to do with the real value of the work, or the ability of the company to pay it. Thus it bankrupts companies.
WD then says: "Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy's income tax bill favors the rich"
As usual, it pays to fact-check these things. Not only does Dan Malloy's income tax bill forcibly appropriate huge sums from the rich (which proves it to be very anti-rich), it robs even MORE from them.
dmarks: As usual, it pays to fact-check these things.
So, if you fact-checked your claims, then where is the link to back up the claims? What did you do, fact-check using your gut? That doesn't count.
Definiton, "guest"...
1. One who is a recipient of hospitality at the home or table of another.
2. One to whom entertainment or hospitality has been extended by another in the role of host or hostess, as at a party.
3. One who pays for meals or accommodations at a restaurant, hotel, or other establishment; a patron.
4. A distinguished visitor to whom the hospitality of an institution, city, or government is extended.
5. A visiting performer, speaker, or contestant, as on a radio or television program.
I see nothing there that even remotely suggests an employee is a "guest".
W-Dervish said: "So, if you fact-checked your claims, then where is the link to back up the claims? What did you do, fact-check using your gut? That doesn't count."
The link was already there. You presented it. Your own link, which I followed at your direction, told of taxes on the rich being increased under that Governor's plan. I guess you did not bother to read much beyond the headline of the article you linked to.
As for the "guest" issue, the definition does more than suggest that an employee who is visiting someone else's property is a guest. The point is, in these situations, they are visitors and not owners.
And by the way, you are clearly definition-shopping. Earlier you picked through to find a narrow and unreal definition of "fascism" in order to let left-wing fascists off the hook.
And guess what. The dictionary you chose for the "guest" definition uses the more proper broad definition:
"a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government."
....which fully fits fascists of both the left AND right. And relevant to recent discussions, the idea of putting control of healthcare in the hands of ruling elites ("single payer") is indeed a step in the direction of fascism, because it centralizes authority.
dmarks: The link was already there. You presented it. Your own link, which I followed at your direction, told of taxes on the rich being increased under that Governor's plan.
Now you're just making shit up. I read the article and the author NEVER says the title is wrong, or meant ironically.
An employee isn't "visiting". An employer and employee sign a contract. When you invite someone into your home do you ask them to sign a contract first? Do you have your guests do household chores and pay them when they leave? This notion that an employee is a "guest" is absurd.
Also, WTF does another word being defined incorrectly have to do with the DIFFERENT word I linked to? Are you suggesting that they got the definition of "guest" wrong... and that under "guest" it should say "see employee"?
wd, I NEVER said that 20-30 year workers made up 80% of anything. I will say that they no doubt represent a massive chunk of that 43% of the no vote.............And what's with this 80% bullshit? 21% of the union can determine what 100% of the union members do? How in the hell is that "democratic"?............As for Mr. Malloy's taxes, I do NOT agree with his decision to up the sales tax (a regressive tax) or his decision to do away with the $50 clothing allowance (another regressive tax). Those decisions I do not agree with.
I would support Dmark's suggestion that unions have a recertification vote every four years.
Although Dmarks has no real knowledge of union workings, if you give a monkey a typewriter eventually it will type something readable.
The rest of his anto union tripe has been addressed several times by me. It is a testament to his slave like loyalty to whatever he's told by right wing puppetmaters that he continues his barrage of anti union bullshit.
I'm really much more pro-worker than anti-union. And unlike you, I defend the rights of the workers who don't want to be in the union. These can be from 30% to 60% of the workers in a close shop.
"It is a testament to his slave like loyalty to whatever he's told by right wing puppetmaters"
That's a rather silly and uninformed thing to say. It's actually a testament to my having done research into the situation of unions taking away workers' rights, and also forcing factories to close.
America works best when it says "Union No". I will continue to venture this informed recommendation until the situation changes and each worker has the protected choice of whether or not to join these political organizations.... organizations that have nothing to do with the worker's ability to do the job.
Will: I NEVER said that 20-30 year workers made up 80% of anything.
You said the 20-30 year workers were responsible for voting down the new contract. The article I linked to says a total of 80 percent "yes" votes was needed to pass the new contract. I just put 2 and 2 together.
dmarks: I'm really much more pro-worker than anti-union.
This statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Workers enjoy higher pay and benefits, better working condition, and greater job security when they belong to a union, yet for some reason dmarks thinks it's better when workers have the exact opposite? His position sounds rather anti-worker and pro-corporate to me.
Unions do not take away worker's rights or force factories to close! THAT is a completely silly and totally uninformed thing to say.
The wealthy-elites hate unions for this reason. How DARE workers ask for more then the absolute minimum an employer can get away with paying! America works best for EVERYONE (much as the wealthy elites and their dupes may disagree) when it says "Union YES".
dmarks: Earlier you picked through to find a narrow and unreal definition of "fascism" in order to let left-wing fascists off the hook.
"Left-wing fascists" can't be left off the hook... because they don't exist! I wasn't definition shopping. I was using the ORIGINAL definition. Mussolini FIRST used the word to describe his Right-wing dictatorship... in which a significant amount of power was handed over to the corporations.
The proper and historical definition of fascism includes the fact that it is right wing. This is a FACT and has zero to do with my ignoring definitions that neuter the word by removing the right-wing component.
WD said: "Workers enjoy higher pay and benefits, better working condition, and greater job security when they belong to a union...."
Workers actually have strong disagreements on this, which is why huge proportions of them say "no" on union votes.
"...yet for some reason dmarks thinks it's better when workers have the exact opposite?"
Actually, some workers agree with your claim about unions. I support their right to join one. Other workers disagree. I support their right to not join one (and stay working at the workplace). The best of both worlds: the deverse interests of these disagreeing workers completely respected.
"Unions do not take away worker's rights or force factories to close!"
They do take away workers' rights. We can start with the very important one of the right to choose not to be in a union.
And they do force factories to close. Check out Flint, Michigan. Or the Boeing case, where it looks likely that the union will force Boeing to move a new plant to India rather than open it in South Carolina.
""Left-wing fascists" can't be left off the hook... because they don't exist!"
Unfortunately, in the real world, left-wing fascists do exist. Consider the great socialist leaders Assad and Gadhaffi (in recent headlines) and Mao and Stalin, historically. We'd be better off if they never existed, sure, but they do.
"The proper and historical definition of fascism includes the fact that it is right wing"
Yet, the dictionary you most recently chose as the authority (on the word "guest") does not include these needless limitation. In the real world, fascism is found on the left and the right.
"I was using the ORIGINAL definition. Mussolini.."
Oops. You are digging a hole here. In the original definition, Fascism was an Italian political movement, and political only.
Of course, the definition later expanded to include tyrannical right-wing AND left-wing movements, no matter where they are found.
Why should non-union workers in a union shop get the benefits without paying for them that the union NEGOTIATES with company management?
Jerry: I strongly support unions not being forced to give any benefits to non-members.
If the management chooses to grant these benefits to the non-union members on their own merits (in reward for their work) that's fine with me.
dmarks: Of course, the definition later expanded...
Now we're getting somewhere. When I brought this up before (that the definition was CHANGED, or "expanded", as you say) you insisted it was a "conspiracy theory". Now you're admitting I was right.
The definition was "expanded" by right-wingers who disliked the fact that fascists were righties like them.
dmarks: In the original definition, Fascism was an Italian political movement, and political only.
Sorry, but you're wrong dmarks. The inventor of the word, Giovanni Gentile, said "Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought".
Fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT in which the corporations are given great power. Right-wingers (like you) believe we should turn over power to the corporations and the wealthy elites, and Left-wingers (like me) believe that the power should be in the hands of the people (democracy).
This is why you refer to the representatives of the people as the "ruling elite". It's because you oppose democracy.
Fascism and socialism are on OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum.
For these reasons I categorically reject your historically inaccurate expanded re-definition of the word "fascism".
End of discussion. You can keep using the incorrect definition if you like, but you aren't going to convince me.
WD said: "Fascism and socialism are on OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum."
No, because they have most particulars in common. Starting with the centralization of authority. Which is why it is wise to point out that while "single payer" is not actual fascism, it is a step in that direction for sure.
But a point can be made about them being on opposite ends: the spectrum can perhaps be thought of as a circle. Right-wing fascist Hitler and socialist extremist Stalin on opposite ends... but back to back, as they are so similar and not really opposites at all.
"Fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT in which the corporations are given great power."
I dug through a lot of definitions and never found this one. I'm sure it's there somewhere buried in obscurity.
"Right-wingers (like you) believe we should turn over power to the corporations and the wealthy elites"
I have never advocated this. If you think so, then you have very poor reading skills.
Actually, in truth, I favor high taxes AND regulation on corporations, and high taxes on the rich. A policy of taking from them and controlling them. An anti-rich stance. As do most, but not all conservatives I know. So this does not fit me. Nor, interestingly, does it fit the Tea Party movement, which has strongly opposed TARP and the other bailouts/handouts to corporations. More strongly than the Democrats.
"and Left-wingers (like me) believe that the power should be in the hands of the people (democracy)."
Yet, consistently you advocate that this power be taken from the people and turned over to ruling elites (which is exactly what single-payer does). Ruling elites elected by democracy are still ruling elites, and you seem to want to use democracy as an excuse for the ruling elites to take rights and property away from the people.
"For these reasons I categorically reject your historically inaccurate expanded re-definition of the word "fascism"."
Your sentence would read better if you replaced "categorically" with ignorantly". My re-definition is not out of line at all, in fact it is the standard. Which means that I am not redefining, but am arguing for the accepted and real definition.
"End of discussion. You can keep using the incorrect definition if you like"
I have yet to. But I will let you know if I decide to start to use yours, then I will be using the incorrect obscure one.
Again, the definition of fascism from your most recently preferred dictionary (the one you used for "guest")
"1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."
No evidence of your self-serving on-the-fly definition of fascism which leaves left-wing fascists off the hook. None whatsoever. In fact, you are obviously engaging in a "historically inaccurate expanded" definition by using the nonsense about corporations as the main characteristic. This very historically accurate description at Wikipedia goes on for several paragraphs describing specifics of fascism as founded by the Italians before it even mentions corporatism.
It's much more revisionism to focus on "corporatist" nonsense than it is to point out that socialist regimes meet so much of the requirements of fascism.
And this is in the real world, not your imaginary one where left-wing fascists get an "Hey, I'm no fascist!" card if they are quoting Marx while they do fascist things.
And one more point before we put this one to bed:
WD said: "Sorry, but you're wrong dmarks. The inventor of the word, Giovanni Gentile, said "Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought".
Fascism is a form of GOVERNMENT in which the corporations are given great power."
What is it? Your two paragraphs contradict each other. Is it government and thought, or just government?
And you certainly dig a deeper hole with the link you provide.
The descriptions of Fascist corporatism in the linked article specifically describe how the State controls corporations and all aspects of society in order to gain harmony. Far from being any sort of government where corporations are given great power, this description is a lot more akin to socialism, where the State is above all, and the considerations of the people don't matter.
Your quote of Giovanni Gentile is correct. At least you didn't get any words wrong. But his point that fascism is a form of thought, not just government has nothing to do with our discussion of the nature of fascism.
"I strongly support unions not being forced to give any benefits to non-members."
I am not talking about benefits the union gives. I am talking about benefits (wages, insurance, vacation, retirement, etc) that the companies give employees based on negotiations with the unions.
Now, if you are in favor of non-union employees not getting the same wages, insurance, vacation, retirement, etc. that union employees get in the same company, I could probably go along with that. However, given that union negotiated benefits are usually greater than non-union benefits, such a move would only strengthen the union position.
Jerry said: "...I am talking about benefits (wages, insurance, vacation, retirement, etc) that the companies give employees based on negotiations with the unions."
If the company chooses to give such benefits, or better ones, to non-union workers based on their own merit, what's wrong with that?
The non-union workers might even get more than the workers, based on individual merit. Their own discussions with the company.
What world do you live in Dmarks that a business will pay a cent more than it has to for labor?
Bro, you are one deluded dude.
Yes, wd, I DID say that 20-30 year veterans were largely responsible for the agreement going down. Who in the hell do YOU think mostly comprised that 43% segment, the newer workers whose heads were on the chopping block? Come on, dude. Stop mischaracterizing my statements. And for Christ sakes, I didn't even know about the 80% (I knew that it was over 50% but not 80%).
And let me ask you one more time, how can a union (this union anyway) be considered "democratic" when only a scant 21% of it is able to rule roughshod over the rest? That doesn't seem to me Democratic at all.
Will: There was a famous case in Michigan recently in which 40,000 of home healthcare workers were forced into the AFSCME through a secret election. I'm not talking about a secret ballot. I mean a secret election that was run in stealth mode. In this secret election, 20% of the workers voted for the union. Based on this, 100% of the workers were forced into it.
Try and see how Jerry and WD claim that this is democratic and workers' choice.
One of my good friends was dragooned into this. She reports her experience, which was pretty bad. The union forced her to pay dues. Then the union got her a pay raise: for much less than the amount of the dues. The union directly depressed her paycheck.
Try and see how Jerry and WD claim that this is good for workers.
--------------------
Truth said: "What world do you live in Dmarks that a business will pay a cent more than it has to for labor?"
Such an amount is a fair wage. The real value of the work. What are you trying to say? You are being rather unclear.
As usual, I crush Dmarks with his own hypocrisy and he feigns ignorance.
I think your story about your friend is BS Dmarks.
Truth said: "As usual, I crush Dmarks with his own hypocrisy and he feigns ignorance."
You've done nothing of the sort. I've been consistent. Back up your claim with evidence.
"I think your story about your friend is BS Dmarks."
Actually it was a typical experience of tens of thousands of home health care workers in Michigan. You might want to check into this scandal before you react with typical pro-union, anti-worker anger.
As long as the union side favors bullying workers into joining against their will, it has a distinct lack of legitimacy.
Dmarks said:
Actually it was a typical experience of tens of thousands of home health care workers in Michigan. You might want to check into this scandal before you react with typical pro-union, anti-worker anger. "
Now you admit the story about your "good friend" wha was dragooned, whatever the hell that means, was made up.
You have no credibility on this Dmarks. You admit dishonesty yet think your BS should have merit.
Now if you really wanted an honest conversation about the role of unions and fair organizing and membership rights, I'd be glad to participate. You may well find that even if we don't see eye to eye on the how, the whys and solutions would be ones we both could live with.
"Now you admit the story about your "good friend" wha was dragooned, whatever the hell that means, was made up."
Truth, are you really this clueless? Quote me one place where I "admitted" that.
The friend who had her paycheck reduced is someone I see and talk to several times a week. After she told me about the union stealing her money, I looked up the situation and followed it until the workers finally prevailed. It was a really outrageous situation, with a secret/hidden ballot process that she never knew about until she found her paycheck reduced.
Here is a summary from Free Republic: "Because of a special deal made behind the scenes between Mich. Gov. Jennifer Granholm and two unions, the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Michigan's 40,000 in-home healthcare workers were unionized by a shady "vote" of less than 20% of these workers in 2006 via a mail-in ballot that most workers had no idea even existed."
Free Republic? Yeah, I know. But itt matches what I remember covered on the state NPR (MPR) affiliates also.
Again, I suggest you research this. With 40,000 victims of this situation in Michigan, it is of course likely that I would personally know someone affected by it. And I do actually know several personally. ... and pretty damned stupid of you to claim I was lying in reaction to me referring to the general news item about this. You really have no idea what you are talking about here, don't you?
As for "dragooned", a dictionary will help.
"You have no credibility on this Dmarks. You admit dishonesty yet think your BS should have merit."
Here you are clearly resulting to insult because you can't back anything up.
I have been completely honest, and have "admitted" no dishonesty. Unless you are making up stuff for the hell of it, there is a good chance you have me confused with someone else. Be more careful next time.
"Now if you really wanted an honest conversation about the role of unions and fair organizing and membership rights"
Do you really want one? It sure doesn't seem like it when you claim I am being "dishonest" as a reaction to my referring to a real situation. Look into the AFSCME scandal first.
I caught your dishonesty about you "friend" Dmarks.
That you do the old five year old child trick and just repeat what I say exposes the desperation of your arguement.
This is the second time I've caught you in a lie Dmarks. And sadly, you don;t need to resort to made up anecdotes about "friends" to make your point.
Truth said: "I caught your dishonesty about you "friend" Dmarks"
What dishonesty did you catch? Please quote it.
"This is the second time I've caught you in a lie Dmarks"
What was the first time?
"That you do the old five year old child trick..."
Now you are being weierd and obtuse. Quoting small sections of something being referred to is standard practice in such discussions, not a child trick of any kind.
You've stopped making sense. Can you back up any of what you say? Or is your "liar" thing just a hollow insult.
And have you researched the Michigan home healthcare scandal?
Post a Comment