34 replies to this topic

[RealTeam]

http://www.calaborfe...dle-class_jobs/

[scb]

RealTeam, on August 08 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:

http://www.calaborfe...dle-class_jobs/

-RealTeam-

They're not fighting for "jobs". Rather, they're fighting for sinecures; paid positions that no longer are economically viable and/or productive, and represent losses to the businesses that are supposed to support them. I.e. - they're clamoring for welfare. Of course, in terms of those actively involved in the destruction of Verizon property, we're not talking about a "middle class" to begin with, but rather a low class of criminal thugs.

Perhaps that's just what this country needs in it's present state; globs of less-productive "workers" being compensated at higher levels than those who actually produce. Makes sense, doesn't it? [smile]

-scb-

[RealTeam]

scb, on August 08 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

-RealTeam-

They're not fighting for "jobs". Rather, they're fighting for sinecures; paid positions that no longer are economically viable and/or productive, and represent losses to the businesses that are supposed to support them. I.e. - they're clamoring for welfare. Of course, in terms of those actively involved in the destruction of Verizon property, we're not talking about a "middle class" to begin with, but rather a low class of criminal thugs.

Perhaps that's just what this country needs in it's present state; globs of less-productive "workers" being compensated at higher levels than those who actually produce. Makes sense, doesn't it? [smile]

-scb-

You say THUG. I prefer Teamsters Helping Unions Grow! Just kidding.

Your agrument can apply to any labor force. Whether Union or not. I pride myself in being able to drive (a set of doubles, or any other truck or bus... stopping on a dime and giving you eights cents change!) operate a forklift, load, unload a trailer with expensive equipment, whatever we do in the craft. I am a professional with millions of accident free miles, and over twenty years of experience in the craft. I am full throtle all the time I am on the clock. I EARN my pay. I put in a honest days work, for a honest days pay. I am NOT Pedro who snuck across the border near El Paso last week. I SHOULD be compensated for my superior skills, and the higher degree of professionalism, and experience I bring to the job. That's precisely how I feel.

One of my favorite sayings is: "I am a Teamster. Of course I can perform the job. The difficult we do immediately. The impossible we do after our 10 o'clock coffee break". I am defiantly and militanly proud in being a TEAMSTER.The problems are not with Teamsters. Or CWA (of whom I personally dislike, because they steal Teamster jobs) in this particular case.

The problems are with LAZY individuals, whether Union or not. To simply put the blame on Unions is disingenuous. In my humble estimation it is UNION BASHING. Pure and simple.

[11:58pm]

First off your [smile] thing annoys me. Its kind of girly.

Second. The Verizon workers, drive trucks, climb utility poles, work underground, enter peoples homes, drag cable under ground, under water, above ground, deal with high voltage, low voltage and keep a global hard wired, digital network of high-speed communication operating on a daily basis. If Verizon as a utility doesn't want to be in the utility business why don't they sell it off?

Its no secret that as "big man of business", SCaB would rather these workers accept defeat, lay down and die.

These men and women are fighting for their families.

One difference between people like SCaB and the striking workers is that the workers actually possess human spirit. Another is the fact that I can admire workers willing to strike to protect their families.

[scb]

-11:58-

I suggest you take up "girly" with your "real" buddy who wants to go "hand and hand" with posters on this board. As for the [smile] annoying you...well, that [smile] has been around on this board a lot longer than you...and, if it "annoys" you, then perhaps you ought to go elsewhere.

As for Verizon and it's "workers", Verizon DOES want to be in the utility BUSINESS. The key word there, however, is "business"; it's NOT a welfare organization which exists solely to support a class of individuals who's "services" are no longer needed and/or aren't worth as much economically as they may think. Maybe, instead of Verizon selling THEIR (NOT the employees') business (although no doubt all sorts of purchasers are just jumping at the chance to purchase a money-losing "unionized" division, I'm sure....smile!), those "employees" who aren't willing to actually BE employed on a market-worth basis ought to sell THEIR services at the rate THEY desire to entities willing to pay them at that rate. Lot of such entities floating around, are there? [another "smile"!]

Sound like a plan? [smile]

But, of course, the fact that they're "fighting for their families" (what a crock!) justifies their engaging in criminal acts like dismantling switch, cutting fiber optic lines, etc. [smile]

I realize that twisted individuals such as yourself can somehow rationalize parasitism to the point that it's considered an "honorable" act. Maybe that's your idea of "fighting" As for me, I don't want the workers to accept "defeat" at all. Hell, as I see it,"defeat" is a "worker" who places so little value in his own economic worth that he is unwilling to compete without subsidy. Rather than suffer such a defeat, I'd like to see them EARN their way...competitively, on the true market value basis of what they have to offer. Those who do are the people who are NOT "defeated". Those, such as yourself, that are seeking a handout simply on the basis, it seems, that they exist, are the "defeated" losers, to my mind. Or do you think that the thousands upon thousands of employers who have been put out of business by the "unions" they were inflicted by represented "winners"? Or that the millions upon millions of jobs - in the trucking industry, in the steel industry, in the auto industry, in the airline industry, in manufacturing generally, etc. - that the unions virtually pissed away made those who supported such travesties "winners"? Really?

Unions COULD serve a positive purpose in today's economy. Those, however, like the two who are currently on strike against Verizon are only engaged in tearing their "(once was"; they're not serving as "employees" currently) employer (and the country) down. They're doing nothing more than biting the hand that feeds them...and, for that activity, I hope they receive their just reward.

Unfortunately, the two unions that are on strike against Verizon today (and, more to the point, just WHY they are on strike!) are all too representative generally of all that unions have "accomplished" over the past few decades. And what an "accomplishment" it is. [last "smile"}

-scb-

[11:58pm]

You're the type of guy who admires the smell of his own shit and you think others should admire it as well. Right?

I can tell your type a thousand yards off. Probably inherited a business from your father and you resented that thats all he had to leave for you.

Truth of the matter is if you were having these conversation face to face with myself or anyone else for that matter the smile would have disappeared a long time ago <wink> <wink>.

[scb]

11:58pm, on August 08 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

You're the type of guy who admires the smell of his own shit and you think others should admire it as well. Right?

I can tell your type a thousand yards off. Probably inherited a business from your father and you resented that thats all he had to leave for you.

Truth of the matter is if you were having these conversation face to face with myself or anyone else for that matter the smile would have disappeared a long time ago <wink> <wink>.

-11:58-

Your "probably" is approaching the suppositions of your buddy "real" there. Ask him how well his "probably"s turned out. As for your ability to "tell" [my] type a thousands yards off"....well, I don't doubt that for a minute. Parasites generally are able to hone-in on those they are absolutely dependent upon. Nothing surprising there.

As for your "for that matter the smile would have disappeared a long time ago", that again sounds quite a bit like your "mano y mano" friend and his school yard blustering (which also worked out quite well for him, as I'm sure you've noticed). Sorry, "11:58", but I'm not some squeamish school girl who you can shove off the teeter-totter. And it hasn't escaped my attention that being physical is about the only hope you had of intimidating someone like myself; you sure as Hell don't seem to be in a position to do it intellectually.

Anyway, my "smile" is still here. You don't like it, then move on. I'm not inclined to wipe it off my face just because it "annoys" some cheap-trick punk.

-scb-

[RealTeam]

scb, on August 08 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

-11:58-

Your "probably" is approaching the suppositions of your buddy "real" there. Ask him how well his "probably"s turned out. As for your ability to "tell" [my] type a thousands yards off"....well, I don't doubt that for a minute. Parasites generally are able to hone-in on those they are absolutely dependent upon. Nothing surprising there.

As for your "for that matter the smile would have disappeared a long time ago", that again sounds quite a bit like your "mano y mano" friend and his school yard blustering (which also worked out quite well for him, as I'm sure you've noticed). Sorry, "11:58", but I'm not some squeamish school girl who you can shove off the teeter-totter. And it hasn't escaped my attention that being physical is about the only hope you had of intimidating someone like myself; you sure as Hell don't seem to be in a position to do it intellectually.

Anyway, my "smile" is still here. You don't like it, then move on. I'm not inclined to wipe it off my face just because it "annoys" some cheap-trick punk.

-scb-

You sure spend alot of time here. You are an employer NOT A TEAMSTER.

Is your life that empty, and unfufilling that you have to "Teamster bait" (no pun intended) all the time? Or is the little lady (probably flaming gay homo lover in your case!) not putting out? Or in?

You were banned from Teamster.net for a long time.

You should crawl back under your rock. You are nothing but an employer, a Union basher, and a Teamster hater. NObody really gives a flying fuck what you think!

The mere knowledge that you post all this ant-Union invective ANONYMOUSLY tells me you have no backbone. Pure and simple, YOU ARE A FUCKING COWARD. And an anti-Union, anti-Teamster peice of shit.

I'd like to meet you face to face someday. REALLY.

In the meantime, go fuck yourself! Teamster Net is for TEAMSTERS. Not scumbag employers like you!

[scb]

-RealTeam-

At it again, 'eh Sport? [grin!] Guess stupid is as stupid does.

First off, not sure some twit from the San Francisco area who has specifically asked to me to go "hand and hand" with him is in a position to make aspersions about my - or anyone else's - sexuality. Secondly, I don't see much reason why I should be gracious toward that same twit when he spreads lies like that of my being banned from T-Net. (what..."Real Team" LIE!.....now THAT'S a shocker!!!!...grin!)

In terms of your veiled threats ("I'd like to meet you face to face someday. REALLY.", etc)....well, as I mentioned before, one can only view them as the efforts of an individual who has done more than anyone else I know to prevent the passage of the EFCA, etc. Glorious examples of "Teamsterism" in practice, aren't they? [cackle]

Sorry for your obvious frustrations, "Real Team"; it must be a "real" bummer to thrash about blindly and not be taken seriously by those of worth. But don't blame me for your intellectual and moral incapacities; I didn't make you what you are. Others will have to take on that guilt.

-scb-

P.S. - Regarding your claim of "NObody really gives a flying fuck what you think!"....well, I've got a body of posts from some punk on this board who goes by the handle of "Real Team" that would seem to indicate differently. ["smile" again!]

[shaft driven]

this "man" is UPS management, and is as queer as the day is long. scb has been known to moan for the bone, if you know what I mean. Takes one to know one, if ya know what I mean

[11:58pm]

Sounds like I hit a nerve. I didn't think you had any. Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are. Maybe it's not news for you but you wouldn't have to wipe the smile off your own face. As usual, somebody will have to do it for you. I am positive that the line of people willing to do it already exist. The line always starts close to home and extends past your "professional" life all the way out to here. I would be willing to cut the line for the number one spot.

You have a wife? Guess what? She thinks you're an asshole. You have kids? Guess what? They think you're an asshole. Got a secretary and employees? Now you get it! They think you're an asshole too. It's just too much of an impossibility that you are only an asshole here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, "the working class is lazy, the union guys are even lazier. Your replies are all too predictable and some of us have nothing better to do than to watch the dog chase it's tail.

Here are some truths you might identify with. You have a 1st amendment right to come here and make yourself appear to be a man by trashing the working class. You make it no secret that you despise the working class but there will always be more of us then there are of you and most of us are big on the 2nd amendment. So get back to work and make sure my check clears!

[scb]

-"11:58" and "shaft driven" --

First, "11:58";

I'm not "trashing the working class" at all; rather, rather I'm "trashing" parasites like YOU. Big, BIG difference. As for "more of us than you" well, you're right....assuming you're talking about a true "working class" and not a conglomerate of "gimme, gimme" artists such as yourself. But so what? Hasn't it dawned on you yet that the aforementioned "working class" is dependent upon employers to BE a "working class"? Otherwise, who are they going to get their means of making a living from? Guys like you, or "Real Team", or "shaft driven" or other such economic and intellectual "worthies" who's only solution to economic problems is that of biting the hand that feeds them?

As for the your "smile" stuff, and all the other bombastic posturing....well, why don't you save it for the peanut gallery where they relish such antics.

Now, on to, "shaft driven";

Don't think that I'm not appreciative of the irony of your "takes one to know one, if ya know what I mean" statement. My response to that goes beyond a "smile" to a full-blown "grin". Keep up the good work! You must make your fellow Teamsters so VERY proud! [cackle]

-scb-

[IBBadDude]

scb, on August 08 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

-RealTeam-

They're not fighting for "jobs". Rather, they're fighting for sinecures; paid positions that no longer are economically viable and/or productive, and represent losses to the businesses that are supposed to support them. I.e. - they're clamoring for welfare. Of course, in terms of those actively involved in the destruction of Verizon property, we're not talking about a "middle class" to begin with, but rather a low class of criminal thugs.

Perhaps that's just what this country needs in it's present state; globs of less-productive "workers" being compensated at higher levels than those who actually produce. Makes sense, doesn't it? [smile]

-scb-

It's unfortunate you don't like one simple fact that workers share in the profits of the business that they engage in. A workers business is to sell his labor through collective bargaining and then has the right to demonstrate if a majority of workers don't agree with the company. they are not parasites, welfare recipients or looking for a free hand out. They are simply negotiating for their working conditions with a company they have been doing business with for decades. We as workers have a right to share in the profits, period.

Owning a business doesn't mean you own the people or the labor, the workers own that, they own their backs, their sweat, their blood and the millions of workers that have died on the job paved they way for us to be a little more catious so we don't bit the bullet for profit. It built the middle class and creates balance.

Corporate power has run out of control of late because working people in mass haven't fought back and allowed them to deregulate, control congress and change the laws that help the middle class. I'm sorry but I believe the power should be shared, discussed and comprimised. Not be absolute with the company.

[scb]

IBBadDude, on August 09 2011 - 07:33 AM, said:

It's unfortunate you don't like one simple fact that workers share in the profits of the business that they engage in. A workers business is to sell his labor through collective bargaining and then has the right to demonstrate if a majority of workers don't agree with the company. they are not parasites, welfare recipients or looking for a free hand out. They are simply negotiating for their working conditions with a company they have been doing business with for decades. We as workers have a right to share in the profits, period.

Owning a business doesn't mean you own the people or the labor, the workers own that, they own their backs, their sweat, their blood and the millions of workers that have died on the job paved they way for us to be a little more catious so we don't bit the bullet for profit. It built the middle class and creates balance.

Corporate power has run out of control of late because working people in mass haven't fought back and allowed them to deregulate, control congress and change the laws that help the middle class. I'm sorry but I believe the power should be shared, discussed and comprimised. Not be absolute with the company.

-IBBAdDude-

If that's all there was too it, I'd readily agree with you. However, it's not.

Why shouldn't management have the EXACT same standing under the law as labor? For instance, if a employee is allowed to terminate the employer/employee relationship at any time, for any reason, then WHY SHOULDN'T MANAGEMENT HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME OPTION?! And why, if workers are allowed to negotiate as they see fit, then WHY AREN'T EMPLOYERS ALLOWED THE SAME OPTION? Are they allowed, for example, to join to together and "black list" employees they find undesirable? Are they able to simply walk away from a negotiation when they find it not going to their liking and HIRE OTHER EMPLOYEES AS THEY SEE FIT? The heart of any TRUE economic negotiation is the ability of EITHER party to just say "no"...and walk away, perhaps to negotiate with other parties who are more amiable to their desires. Is that the reality in today's environment? When employers don't abide by rules, they're held to the standards of the law. Is that law equally applied to labor unions? Think they'll be called to task, for example, for the destruction they've caused against Verizon? Think any and all of the union members will be fined a significant amount for sanctioning such criminal activity? Say half their years earnings (not an unheard of fine on the employer side).

"No", employers don't own the people. However, they *DO* "own" the labor they pay for...and employees know that coming in. As for "building the middle class"...frankly, I'm getting a little sick of hearing that crap. I heard it a few days ago from this UAW bozo who told me that "the UAW built the city of Detroit". Well, the UAW was founded in 1935, and at that time, Detroit was a much larger, powerful, and prosperous city that it is today. Truth is, the UAW has virtually DESTROYED Detroit...as unions have the middle class in general. Think all those jobs that have gone off-shore did so because organized American labor demonstrated that it was COMPETITIVE on the world stage, do ya'? Think you can "fight back" and FORCE employers to remain in this country while you "negotiate" their demise? Think you can ultimately "regulate" the efforts of those that generate the capital that supports jobs and actually DOES maintain a middle class? That work quite well in the post-WWI Soviet Russia, did it? Or 1960's Great Britain? Or Argentina a few years ago? Or Cuba and Venezuela today?

I'd submit that pretty close the absolute worst thing that can happen to an economy is "capital flight"....and that's what I see happening in the U.S. today. "Organized" labor has quite literally begun to scare the capital out of this country. When 45% of the country's households pay no Federal income tax at all...while clamoring for those who already pay the vast bulk of the taxes to absorb MORE of that burden, then there's a problem. When unions refuse to recognize economic realities to the point where they are unwilling to work unless their receive an unsustainable premium (read "welfare") for what they do as is (exactly the case of the Verizon strikers), then there's a problem. Then they ARE parasites. Then they are NOT "workers". They're just simply more welfare recipients with "gimme, gimme" demands.

Sorry, but there are NOT any compulsive laws that can be made by Congress or any other entity that can FORCE capital to finance the jobs workers want and need. You can argue the point all you want...and the entire time you're arguing, capital will be flying to parts where it's more appreciated. Surely the utter failure of the Teamsters to maintain their employers (and hence their members employment) over the past few decades should have taught us SOMETHING!

-scb-

P.S. - If employees want to share in the PROFITS of a company - as opposed to receiving the wages agreed upon for their labor - then perhaps they should INVEST in the company, as all other sharers of the "profit" do. As I see it, there's nothing stopping them from doing so...except, perhaps, their own incompetence (an accurate word that, unfortunately has a loaded connotation). Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with not having the capacity to create capital. But, then again, I see absolutely no reason to REWARD that incapacity, either.

[IBBadDude]

Scb,

93% of workers work for employers that have the right under the law to terminate their employment at any time. It's called at will status. Those lucky 7% that you are saying is destroying America are also subject to it at the expiration of the contract mutually negotiated and agreed to. You can't negotiate anything without leverage or you're not negotiating.

If a company wants to terminate an employee or all it's employs for that matter for no good reason, well they are probably not a responsible employer and should be held accountable to the public that purchases their product or services. See workers are in control of market demands when they asked the public to support their efforts and ultimately the public decides to patronize depending on that support. Very simple and that's because the workers own their own labor. Once agreed to a binding contract both parties are held to the standard they signed off on.

The vast majority of jobs shipped out of the country in the last 20 years have been non union ones with no fireworks attached to it. Quietly gone to countries with far cheaper labor.

Now your statement that our lowly ol 7% has singled handedly destroyed the economy is giving us way too much credit. Organized Labor has scared the capital out of this country? Lolololololololol!!!!!! The capital is here, it's exploiting workers all over the world for wages we earned in the early 1900s and that means it will pull ALL of our wages down in the long run including yours.

As far as unions destroying the middle class and are parasites. Unions are not institutions, they are comprised of people that come together for collective action and change with the times as the people see fit. Big business is driving down wages, opened the global market, runs the banks and insurance companies, lobbies congress, controls the media and has fed this rubbish to a point that you actually believe it. Lol.

Big business had big profits before the exit of jobs out of the country, that wasn't enough and they wanted more to go to just a few. They lobbied to trade with China, remember that communist country that they hated until they could exploit their labor? Wow, look at the capital and resources spent to build up the largest country in the world so they could make more money on products we no longer produce. Detroit was built because of American industry, innovation and hard working labor. Those companies made billions over time, created lots of millionaires, then exported the jobs out of the country. You know, companies tell their workers to save for a rainy day, but as soon as the economy has a wrinkle companies don't want to reach into their reserves. They want the worker to pay for it.

I say when it rains you should help your fellow man find shelter, not run for cover and only think of yourself.

[SHIFTALKER]

IBBadDude, on August 09 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

Scb,

93% of workers work for employers that have the right under the law to terminate their employment at any time. It's called at will status. Those lucky 7% that you are saying is destroying America are also subject to it at the expiration of the contract mutually negotiated and agreed to. You can't negotiate anything without leverage or you're not negotiating.

If a company wants to terminate an employee or all it's employs for that matter for no good reason, well they are probably not a responsible employer and should be held accountable to the public that purchases their product or services. See workers are in control of market demands when they asked the public to support their efforts and ultimately the public decides to patronize depending on that support. Very simple and that's because the workers own their own labor. Once agreed to a binding contract both parties are held to the standard they signed off on.

The vast majority of jobs shipped out of the country in the last 20 years have been non union ones with no fireworks attached to it. Quietly gone to countries with far cheaper labor.

Now your statement that our lowly ol 7% has singled handedly destroyed the economy is giving us way too much credit. Organized Labor has scared the capital out of this country? Lolololololololol!!!!!! The capital is here, it's exploiting workers all over the world for wages we earned in the early 1900s and that means it will pull ALL of our wages down in the long run including yours.

As far as unions destroying the middle class and are parasites. Unions are not institutions, they are comprised of people that come together for collective action and change with the times as the people see fit. Big business is driving down wages, opened the global market, runs the banks and insurance companies, lobbies congress, controls the media and has fed this rubbish to a point that you actually believe it. Lol.

Big business had big profits before the exit of jobs out of the country, that wasn't enough and they wanted more to go to just a few. They lobbied to trade with China, remember that communist country that they hated until they could exploit their labor? Wow, look at the capital and resources spent to build up the largest country in the world so they could make more money on products we no longer produce. Detroit was built because of American industry, innovation and hard working labor. Those companies made billions over time, created lots of millionaires, then exported the jobs out of the country. You know, companies tell their workers to save for a rainy day, but as soon as the economy has a wrinkle companies don't want to reach into their reserves. They want the worker to pay for it.

I say when it rains you should help your fellow man find shelter, not run for cover and only think of yourself.

Amen, brother

[scb]

-IBBadDude-

All quite glib...but simply not true.

First, in terms of "at will" employees, there really isn't such a thing today. Even under the most lenient of "at will" situations, beyond outright malfeasance, an employer will get docked for unemployment compensation at the very least. As for that "7%" your talking about (much about that later, when we talk about what the percentage USED to be...and the number of jobs the unions pissed away) are NOT "subject to it at the expiration of the contract mutually negotiated and agreed to"; I suggest you read up on your labor law and just see how that works. If it worked the way YOU say, I can flat-ass guarantee you that there would be company after company "union free" in matter of just a few years. As for "leverage", I'll grant the leverage OF THE EMPLOYEE'S ECONOMIC WORTH! Beyond that, however - as in the case of political favor, which is what the law represents now - you're simply talking about governmental welfare. Do you REALLY believe if BOTH sides of the labor equation were treated equally, so-called "labor" unions would be able to engage in the shenanigans that they do? REALLY?!?

As for "responsible employers", just on what basis should they be held "responsible" for in terms of the public? Hell, employers are PROVIDING pay for labor; what does organized labor provide society by way of comparison? Yeah, talk about the "8 hour day", "5 day week", and all the other crap that was probably initiated well earlier by a fellow named "Bismarck"...and then tell me what organized labor actually PROVIDES! Take the Teamsters, for example. They train their members to increase their labor marketability, do they? They discipline them, to make sure that employers (and society in general) aren't saddled with their bad apples? They willing to share in economic LOSSES as well as gains (remember a lot of times, do ya', where unions have approached employers asking for a REDUCTION in compensation in order to enhance the viability of the enterprise). What? Granted, unions overseas DO perform those functions - I've worked with one or two of them - but here in America? Nope. No how, no way...

Which brings us to your claim of....

"The vast majority of jobs shipped out of the country in the last 20 years have been non union ones with no fireworks attached to it. Quietly gone to countries with far cheaper labor."

Yeah. Right. Suggest you tell that to the members of the UAW, who've seen imports from production overseas cut their jobs by 2/3rds or more. Look at Detroit and the "union" jobs that haven't been lost there. Or to members of the USW who have seen steel production concentrated overseas, while their once-upon-a-time employers slowly closed their gates. In that vein, take a look at places like Gary, Indiana, and compare it's population of primarily UNION member households of twenty years ago to what is there today. Then, go on to members of the IAM. Perhaps you could take a look at the once-upon-a-time airline maintenance facilities, like the ones in Indianapolis, or Kansas City, etc and see how grand they are today in terms of IAM employments compared to what they were twenty years ago. Then compare them to the foreign facilities where their jobs are at today. Or perhaps you could take a look at the aircraft production industry in places like St. Louis and Southern California and convince the union members in those areas that THEIR jobs haven't moved to production facilities overseas...to places that bear signs reading "Airbus", or "Embraer" and such. Lastly, take a tour through the once-upon-a-time mill towns of the south, and check in with former Textile Worker of America members and tell THEM that union jobs haven't migrated overseas. Or, in a related industry, jog through NYC and talk to all the Garment Workers Union who have resisted (yeah, right!) their jobs being shipped to the Phillipines, or Indonesia, or whatever.

Finally, add up all the "union" jobs from the above list (which is still only a "partial") and tell me again that "The vast majority of jobs shipped out of the country in the last 20 years have been non union ones with no fireworks attached to it"....and I'll call pure and utter "bullsh_t"!

Which brings us to your "7% figure. Yes, that is close to the current portion of PRIVATE SECTOR union membership today (7.6%, isn't it?)...but that is a big drop from close to 40% not that many years ago. Nor does it account for the 12%+ TOTAL union membership in this country....representing the vast growth of "organizing" of public "workers". That growth, not coincidentally, seems to correspond with the ruinous growth of this nation's debt.

As for your claim that "the capital is here", the question I have to ask is "just what planet have you been living on?" See a lot of new plants being built, do you? See firms like UPS - which, in case you haven't noticed, is pushing its capital abroad and generating most of its new profits there as well - repatriating their profits back here? Are companies like Caterpillar, Cummins, etc. - the bulk of who's sales are now overseas - investing their funds in American facilities...particularly in union locals? Do you even know what "capital flight" MEANS???? Think the stock market drop of the last couple of weeks represents an INFLUX of capital to this country? Got news for ya', Guy; it's FLYING out of this country, seeking locales where it can prosper...or at least not be eaten away non-productively.

As for your claim that "unions are not institutions"...what a crock! Hell, not only ARE they "institutions", they are about as "institutional" as they come! Look at the Teamsters. As I discussed in a previous post, their problem is SYSTEMIC; a product of the institution itself. It's so-called "leaders" CAN'T be honest with the membership and retain their jobs. That's why you come up with TDU flakes claiming that Central States can pay higher pension amounts even though it's broke, or jokers like Hoffa claiming he'd lead the Northern Michigan Hospital nurses back when they reclaimed their jobs..when he knew full well that it was quite likely that they all lose them (which they did). And do we even need to go into the unions desire to do away with secret ballot elections because, AS "institutions", they don't feel they can function in a democratic, free-will environment? And what do apologists called the FORCED "unionization" of employees in non-RTW states who, regardless of their personal wants and needs, have to bow to the demands of that INSTITUTION that goes by the name "union"?

Lastly, "big business" CAN'T - got that? CAN'T - drive wages down below market value. If a business isn't willing to pay a market wage (a TRUE market wage now!) for labor, then a potential employee can simply seek employment elsewhere. Period. Simple as that. Beyond that, I'd submit that, by driving jobs elsewhere, it's the union's THEMSELVES that are ultimately "driv[ing] down wages"....or do you think a bunch of bozos who pissed their jobs away and are therefore earning NOTHING are making a contribution to the maintaining of the base wage level? Think the employees of those 98 of the one hundred largest LTL trucking companies that the Teamsters drove into bankruptcy over the last 30 years made big bucks in the process? Or helped their Teamster brethren increase THEIR wage potential? Yeah, right! You destroy the market, you diminish the market wage. No rocket science needed to ascertain that fact.

Sorry, but as I see it, the destruction of elements of the "buyer" side of labor doesn't do anything to enhance wages. Quite the opposite. Hell, unions like the Teamsters have destroyed employer after employer...and then wonder why there aren't any left to maintain wages. Big mystery that!

Lastly, your comment of...

"You know, companies tell their workers to save for a rainy day, but as soon as the economy has a wrinkle companies don't want to reach into their reserves. They want the worker to pay for it"

...really got my goat. Let me use one example to illustrate why. A few years ago, there was a poster on this board who went by the handle of "alex_y" who made a big deal of what a successful company YRCW was, based on the contribution the TEAMSTERS had made to it. He also made it out to be a good investment; hopefully there weren't many Teamsters who took up such silly advice because, at that time, YRCW was trading in the low 40s, as I recall. Today, after a 25:1 REVERSE split, the company's stock is trading in the 75 CENT range....approximately 1/1433rd of what it once was. Meaning that for every $1433 dollars those who provided the capital for this "upstanding", "union" company had invested, they now have $1 remaining. Meanwhile, what comparable sacrifices have the YRCW Teamster employees made? Oh, a cut here, and a concession there. But I'll tell you here and now that NONE of them are working for 1.7 CENTS- got that? one point seven CENTS!!! - per hour, which would be a comparable "haircut" to that undergone by the investors. 'Course, I could also get into the GM bankruptcy - in which the legitimate, traditional interests of the supposedly SECURED debtors were sacrificed so those who DROVE the company into bankruptcy in order that they could continue in subsidized sinecures. And so on and so on. So PLEASE don't try to tell me that companies "want the worker to pay for it". The simple fact is that "the workers" haven't been willing to cover even part of their OWN hook...let alone that of their employers. And I suppose THAT type of conduct is your idea of "hel[ing] your fellow man find shelter". Again, WHAT A CROCK! Labor - at least the "organized" part of it - hasn't been willing to do a damn thing toward helping it's "fellow man" for decades now. Quite the contrary; throughout that time, all they've done is demand that their "fellow man" subsidize THEM.

So "yep", there are those of us who "actually believe it". And, unlike Teamsters generally, we're the responsible ones who PROVIDE employment and make an effort to MAINTAIN jobs in this country...in the face of individuals such as yourself who are convinced that if they demand "gimme, gimme" often enough, things will magically go their way.

Sorry if reality intrudes.

-scb-

[Dedicated251]

Any talk of being paid 'market wages' is a big business fallacy. Big capital in large part determines these 'market wages' by simply paying 'competitive wages' and the rest of the industry follows. When unions drive up wages because workers make a particular company or companies successful, then the rest of the industry has to try to follow suit for fear of union organizing of more companies to gain somewhat equivalent wages and benefits. When big business has the upper hand, like now with union busting for 40 years and trade agreement that allow for exploitative working conditions; then 'market wages' are set as more and more jobs are outsourced or exported, and the rest of the workforce has to accept less in order to keep their jobs. Even though companies are successful, the idea that a thriving middle class only furthers the success of overall economy (and hopefully companies that pay well since their workers can buy the goods/services offered), has been destroyed by corporate greed.

I guess only the select few executives can receive big checks in order that their 'talent' be retained, and these elite are the only drivers to overall economic success. This is very short sided, and is more represented in Third World economies.

[scb]

-Dedicated251-

Is that the reality in your world? Have the Teamsters driven up the wages of their once-upon-a-time more than two MILLION members, for example? How about the UAW? Have they driven up the wages of the approximately 280,000 (more than 2/3rds of their once-upon-a-time membership number) of their members who's employment they pissed away? Want me to go on? I can, you know!

"Market wages" are simply that; the market value of the labor being offered and bargained for, by entities free to bargain as their interests lead them. They CAN'T be "driven" down; they simply exist at what ever level the law of supply and demand determines. The supply of labor is low, and the demand high, then wages will be high. Correspondingly, if the supply of labor is high, and the demand for that labor (or any specific component of it) is low, then the wages will be low...and, if they're not, then it represents a form of subsidy (read "welfare") in which other components of society are forced to sacrifice their earned market-based wage to provide.

As for "big business" having the "upper hand" now...have you been following current events? This country has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. Result? Domestic companies have an INCENTIVE to REDUCE investment in this country (and distribute their losses so they show up here) and pay taxes on profits in countries where the rate is more reasonable. Meanwhile, 45% of the households in the United States - got that; FORTY-FIVE PERCENT!!!, or close to 140 MILLION people - pay NO Federal income tax at all. Think that corporations - and the capitalist investors that form them - are going to hang their capitol around so it can be FURTHER squandered on those who are basically making no financial contribution whatsoever? Don't think so!

Think about it. Right now, someone who has an income of $250,000/year, and who pays the average (at that income level) rate of 17%, pays about $42,000 yearly in Federal income tax...which is exactly $42,000 more than what 45% of the nations population - close to 140 million people - pays in TOTAL! Think that situation is going to last, do ya'?

In the end, you can't "tame" capital. It's going to go where the market leads, just as water finds it's own level. Over the long term, you can't trap it, nor force it to bend to your will. All you can do is be attractive to it. Right now, much of American labor - and particularly "union" labor - isn't at all "attractive" to those who have capital which could be used to create jobs. And quackery about a "thriving middle class" by those who aren't willing to EARN their place in that class isn't going to make it more so.

Again, sorry if reality intrudes....

-scb-

[Shaman]

Great string! Mind opening, informative and provocative.