|
Post by bassman on Jan 28, 2006 16:38:00 GMT -6
Before you get your poison pens out, allow me to ask this question. Are labor unions still necessary, or have they gotten too powerful, too political too fast? My contention is that unions, especially municipal unions have gotten too fat off the backs of the rank-and-file members for decades. Now I understand that it is necessary to keep management accountable. But can that be accomplished without the cat-and-dog fights between labor and management? Your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by publicus on Jan 28, 2006 17:13:23 GMT -6
the families of 14 miners dead in nonunion mines beg to differ-crucified for corporate profits as is the history of unchallenged capital in the US-it is interesting how coporate and government policy in this country now services the communist chinese-we were all taught to fear the godless government slaves of Marxism but who would have thought that the American worker must now copy their lifestyle in order to be competitive? as the saying goes-we are all wearing the blue dress now
|
|
|
Post by lc on Jan 29, 2006 9:58:46 GMT -6
There is a difference between labor unions and the labor movement. Just as there is a difference between religions and churches.
The labor movement changed the world, created the middle class and redistributed wealth in a broad way decentralizing income, wealth and power.
The 40 hour work week, Social security, unemployment insurance, health benefits, retirement accounts and overtime pay were all products of the labor movement as well.
Democracy is dependent on a relatively equal economic playing field. Labor has been the balancing force to corporate power that has created the perhaps the most level playing field in all of history.
Labor as a movement is in decline, as are labor unions.
I avoided the question. Whether or not labor unions specifically are out of sync with the times is beyond me, they are imperfect at best, in the best of times.
But the role they played is essential and somehow must be filled other wise the middle class will erode and wealth disparity will seek it's most extreme forms.
And again, you can not have extreme wealth disparity and democracy. The two are contradictions of the the other.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 30, 2006 22:44:09 GMT -6
Before you get your poison pens out, allow me to ask this question. Are labor unions still necessary, or have they gotten too powerful, too political too fast? My contention is that unions, especially municipal unions have gotten too fat off the backs of the rank-and-file members for decades. Now I understand that it is necessary to keep management accountable. But can that be accomplished without the cat-and-dog fights between labor and management? Your thoughts. I'd first like to ask you why you even suggest that labor unions have gotten "too" powerful? Labor unions have been steadily losing power over the last 20 years. There certainly isn't any problem with them being too powerful compared to times in the past, and they certainly aren't growing in power. They're shrinking. I might agree that some municipal unions are too powerful. I think that might be the case in California, especially when it comes to pensions and issues like workman's compensation claims. Overall, however, our country would be better off if unions had more power. Unions are the only way to increase American wages, given the constant increase in labor supply compared to labor demand. With immigration swelling our workforce, and outsourcing decreasing jobs, unions are the last bastion against a perpetual decline in aggregate American labor income. And that labor income means consumer income, which is necessary to finance consumer spending, create consumer demand for production, and create demand for workers to provide that production. As pointed out in my post on the "Wage-Productivity Gap," worker/consumer income is falling behind production. Consumers must have enough wealth to purchase American production, or there'll be no production. Without current record levels of borrowing, there'd be insufficient consumer spending to drive our economy. However, the "borrowing bubble" has largely obscured the declining ability of the American consumer to purchase American production on wages alone. When the borrowing bubble finally does burst, the wage-productivity gap will become apparent. And it's effects will stop economic growth in its tracks. If unions did have more power, they would drive American worker wages up, and drive aggregate consumer income upward. But with the limited power they have today, their effect on wages is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Jan 30, 2006 23:57:55 GMT -6
Un LC, altho I agree in theory with your premise that labor unions are necesary, your point is pretty blunt and may fail under scrutiny.
Labor unions are a great concept, but do they succeed? Evidence is fairly strong that they have failed.
Perhaps some more useful construction would have better advocated for labor's rights.
Just sayin.
Labor unions were a first attempt at realizing an ideal. There may be better ways toward the same end that have never gained popular opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 10, 2006 16:36:50 GMT -6
LC,
I'm not sure what part of my point you're referring to. I suspect you do agree with me about the wage-productivity gap. If not, could you elaborate further? Regarding the wage productivity-gap, Ravi Batra has written a very persuasive and logical book that covers it, called Greenspan's Fraud. The name is somewhat of a misnomer, since it covers much more than Greedspan. If you haven't read it, I'd encourage you to do so. It's easy reading, as well as being extremely interesting. Though Dr. Batra is an economist, the book is written in layman's' terms and is quite easy to follow.
I'd also be interested in hearing your suggestions regarding alternatives to labor unions.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 10, 2006 22:20:57 GMT -6
I don't have the solution to labor unions, Unlawful. But my observation is that the labor movement was profoundly popular and succesful and both it's popularity and success declined under the tenure of labor unions.
What I am suggesting is that labor unions may have inherent flaws and that the labor movement being much more broadbased in it appeal and purpose did not share those flaws.
Labor unions were a first attempt. Perhaps a Labor party would have had more success, or a labor lobby, or one idea that I did spend quite a bit of time on was a labor self insurance collective.
The economy we know is an early experiment having attempted on a small fraction of the obvious possibilites. Not to mention the visionary ones.
Personally given the times i think a labor party could have and probably still could upset the two party system.
|
|