destruction of unions

[N311HK]

It is NEVER left vs right with me.

I would love term limits, cutting congressional and administrative pay (although it would not help in cases like Bloomberg, who is already rich).

Small government is best.

Which alternate way of thinking do I "refuse" to explore?

Once again, I think you are trapped in a narrative.

Ugh Small government, big government blah blah. It should be us against them, the people should have the power. The government should be scared of the people. Any government is not answer! The people are the answer. We sit here and bicker about unions and they're laughing at the top because they're winning.

 

[dragontamer]

This about individualism which is the cancer of our society.

I knew people thought like this but I didn't think folks would proudly proclaim it. Have you read past "WE the people"? Are there any pilot jobs available in North Korea? The greatest country in the world was created with rugged individualism and self-reliance. The constitution was painstakingly written to limit the power of the collective Government (the We).

Your side of collectivism has made great strides in the last 3 1/2 years. I'm sure I'll be one of the first to be re-educated at one of the camps for the common good (as perceived by those in power).

 

[dragontamer]

FDR never said any such thing. You, as is true of most of your ilk, are badly misrepresenting a letter that FDR wrote in 1937. His concern was that strikes from public sector employees would badly disrupt the ability of government to function. This is not in any way a denunciation of organized labor but rather another example of how important FDR thought was the role of strong centralized government. There is no question that President Roosevelt supported Unions across the board.

"My dear Mr. Steward:
......All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful." FDR.

Sounds like FDR would have liked the reforms Scott Walker has introduced. He foresaw the militant tactics (ie. taking over the capital and intimidating those who disagree) that such Public Unions would utilize.

 

[fob727]

Unions kill companies with excessive demands, and make them non-competitive. In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of yesterday's agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.




as they are doing in Wisc, Tuesday will prove how effective this is.

BTW: From the history books, it is 1941, Russia and Germany sign a non-aggression pact. The US is mobilizing, the arms are going to the UK under lead lease. Russia dosn't like arms going to someone who is a war with their buddy Germany. So the communist party calls for strikes throughout the US armaments industry using organized labor. Now June 1941 Germany invades Russia, Russia needs lean lease materiel. Hopkins tells Stalin that the strikes are limiting US arms production, suddenly the strikes diminish. History of labor unions, it is in the history books.

It had nothing to do with them making a POS product??

 

[JT12345]

It had nothing to do with them making a POS product??

States go bankrupt too. Counties. They can throw out the union contracts if they do. Unions and their members get greedy just like the U.S. CEOs making 25x their counterparts in other countries. How were the Exec bonuses during these tough times at GM????????????

Blame everyone. Don't be a rich mans fool.

 

[Freeze_gopher]

Sounds like FDR would have liked the reforms Scott Walker has introduced. He foresaw the militant tactics (ie. taking over the capital and intimidating those who disagree) that such Public Unions would utilize.

Actually, you are quite incorrect. As an aside, how do you pick just the language you like out of one letter? The letter was written in 1937 so the language is a little different than now, but any consideration would have led you to "as usually understood" and "militant tactics" clearly the point of this letter is a dialogue focused on the possibility of widespread general strikes at the federal level, with the leadership of the existing organization you claim he opposed. FDR's belief that public sector workers have the right to the same concerns and rights of protection as do private sector workers is in the letter! Is there any possibility of actual consideration here? I would like to think it's possible. It certainly doesn't seem probable.

FDR's concern was wide spread general strikes, not collective bargaining, not benefits, and certainly this letter does not in any way even vaguely suggest that public sector workers can not organize. In fact rules were put in place that protected the working conditions, pay, and benefits of public sector workers specifically so someone like Scott Walker could not place these workers in a position where they felt compelled to strike. These protections have led us to our current discussion. A discussion in which you and your brethren seem utterly lost. Pay has not jumped sharply for public sector labor, they do not have better benefits than they did thirty years ago (in fact they are worse). Why then does it seem that they have such a great deal? Their pay has not been eroded like it has in the private sector. Huge numbers of lesser skilled jobs have been outsourced to private industry. This outsourcing of jobs have left a larger than usual number of public sector employees on the pay roles that have advanced degrees...they make more money (well less however than their comparably educated private sector counter parts).

In any case, the suggestion that FDR opposed any form of organized labor is laughable and not historically correct.

 

[pilotyip]

In any case, the suggestion that FDR opposed any form of organized labor is laughable and not historically correct.

Well until his encounter with them during WWII where he came close to drafting them to put them back to work. But he got Stalin to tell the US workers to go back to work. Check it out it is in the histroy books.

 

[pilotyip]

It had nothing to do with them making a POS product??

It had everything to do with it, they were broke because of the union's demands, they could not invest in new product like Toyota, a non-union company.

BTW It looks like the people of Wisc have spoken and they strongly support what Walker has done. It will now spread across the national, Rationality in public contracts.

 

[ironspud]

Been humming "On Wisconsin" all evening. Something good must have happened.

 

[lindsaya99]

I just hope I don't have to say "I told you so".