"Ron Paul Would Allow ‘Open Season’ on Union Organizers"

[luiz]

Who would elect a lazy incompetent parasite as the leader of his union?

The good ones won't even run (why would they?), and typically only a small fraction of the workforce even bothers voting.

 

[Traitorfish]

If Luiz is so convinced that the possibility of corruption and waste in labour unionism is grounds for scrapping it altogether, one can only imagine what he makes of political democracy.

@Leo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Crow

This is the leader of the National Union of Rail and Maritime workers and he is responsbile for a lot of service disruption on the London underground. He earns a 6 figure salary and yet still lives in a council house (housing provided by the government) - depriving others in a genuine need. His only job is the general secretary of the union so he makes a profession out of confrontation with other stakeholders. London underground train drivers now earn £40k/year for a 4 day week of 35 hours. Which is a bit much IMO ;p

He has done a very good job for his members to be honest but his striking actions inconveniance a lot of commuters. He could lockdown London if he wanted too. He has even threatened the mayor with strike action during the Olympics in the summer if his workers don't get a bonus! Treason!

I always find it fascinating how, as soon as you find yourself in a blue collar, the Thatcherites among us will harangue you no end about the paramount importance of social responsibility, selflessness, and the collective good.

 

[luiz]

I never said labor unionism should be scrapped altogether, just some of its legal privileges. I'd also tweak our existing political democracies quite a bit if I had it my way

 

[useless]

I have made one useful post, yes.

I'm glad that I fill that niche in the market, as the market has clearly dictated that one such as me, is required here on CFC.

Traitorfish, it's dully noted that after you've been outdebated on a polite debate you always and infallibly resort to trolling. Grow up kid.

Useless, have you ever made an useful post?

How can one reach over 6,000 posts without ever adding anything to any discussion is beyond me. It's remarkable. Are you a normal human being? I swear to God I'd like to see you. Your uselessness intrigues me.

It seems like you don't even bother to read your own posts...

 

[Traitorfish]

Traitorfish, it's dully noted that after you've been outdebated on a polite debate you always and infallibly resort to trolling. Grow up kid.

What debate were we having, exactly, for you to out-debate me in?

It's nice to see that my trolling is finally being recognised as infallible, though. At least somebody around here appreciates me!

 

[Arwon]

I'd post something but I'm too busy being a parasitic mafia thug. Luiz is wrong, it takes a lot of work to do that.

 

[luiz]

I have made one useful post, yes.

I'm glad that I fill that niche in the market, as the market has clearly dictated that one such as me, is required here on CFC.

It seems like you don't even bother to read your own posts...

You did not really answer my question. Do you have some mental disability / handicap that people should be aware of? I honestly usually avoid your posts because it feels rude on my part to respond in anyway. Are you on medication? Are the people responsible for you aware of the amount of time you spend on internet forums?

What debate were we having, exactly, for you to out-debate me in?

The one about unions. Some people can't stand when others with different opinions make well-thought posts. I know you love to debate ad eternum with all self-proclaimed libertarians, as long as they are 12 years old whose whole argumentation comes down to "government bad". But when someone who is not a caricature makes a post you cannot properly refute you resort to trolling.

I'd post something but I'm too busy being a parasitic mafia thug. Luiz is wrong, it takes a lot of work to do that.

Where have I called you that? Where have I implied that everyone who belongs to an union is a parasite? I belong to one myself, as I said (though it was not my choice). In fact I explicitly stated that unions have valid purposes, that collective bargaining is important and justified, and that only state-granted privileges degrade them. The more extreme the privileges, the bigger the problem (at least as a rule).

Don't fake offense, I was not offensive at any point.

Moderator Action: The mental handicap & handler comments are a bit over the top; trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cutlass]

Where have I called you that? Where have I implied that everyone who belongs to an union is a parasite? I belong to one myself, as I said (though it was not my choice). In fact I explicitly stated that unions have valid purposes, that collective bargaining is important and justified, and that only state-granted privileges degrade them. The more extreme the privileges, the bigger the problem (at least as a rule).

Actually, the more the privileges, the more the effectiveness. And that's a net win for the economy. Any individual firm may benefit from lower wages than its competitors, but the macro effect is that the higher wages means that everyone wins.

 

[Arwon]

I find it difficult to take someone seriously who thinks unresricted ability to lock out workers until they give up self-advocacy is a "right" but being able to take industrial action without being fired during negotiations is a "privilege". Do you think there should be formalised negotiation rules or independent arbitration at all? Or are those things just fripperies and privileges?

 

[Traitorfish]

The one about unions. Some people can't stand when others with different opinions make well-thought posts. I know you love to debate ad eternum with all self-proclaimed libertarians, as long as they are 12 years old whose whole argumentation comes down to "government bad". But when someone who is not a caricature makes a post you cannot properly refute you resort to trolling.

Which "one about unions"? Beyond my question about "parasitism", which was a very straightforward ask-a-question-get-an-answer exchange, we haven't actually interacted in this thread.

You are honestly sounding a wee bit paranoid here. Would it help if I ordered you not to take offence at my comments, giving that you apparently consider that a valid way of resolving such issues? Or perhaps I should just insist that you have a mental disability? I'm very much open to suggestion!

 

[peter grimes]

What debate were we having, exactly, for you to out-debate me in?

It's not a debate when someone insists that their experience is representative of all, and ignores evidence to the contrary.

We've now had at least 3 people respond to luiz's claims that union bosses call strikes for their own personal gain but he doesn't acknowledge that he might be exaggerating.... and so it goes.

 

[Archbob]

So what prize to I get if I bag a big Union-Organizer during this open season?

 

[Crezth]

So what prize to I get if I bag a big Union-Organizer during this open season?

A bar of gold!

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Several infractions handed out, spam deleted. Luiz, Traitorfish, Useless, please stop trolling each other. Thread is generally getting spammy.

 

[luiz]

Actually, the more the privileges, the more the effectiveness. And that's a net win for the economy. Any individual firm may benefit from lower wages than its competitors, but the macro effect is that the higher wages means that everyone wins.

That is demonstrably false.
Unions have far more privileges in Brazil than the US or even Europe, and yet they are not effective and are a huge drag for the overal economy.

I find it difficult to take someone seriously who thinks unresricted ability to lock out workers until they give up self-advocacy is a "right" but being able to take industrial action without being fired during negotiations is a "privilege". Do you think there should be formalised negotiation rules or independent arbitration at all? Or are those things just fripperies and privileges?

In other words you find it difficult to take people who have different opinions seriously.

I explained the logic behind my position well enough. Agree or disagree with it, it's quite clear. An owner can shut down his plant whevener he wishes for the same reason Manoel the baker can shut down the bakery: it's his to do as he pleases. He will have to deal with the consequences, just like Manoel the baker: financial losses. Workers can withdraw labor, but they too must face the consequences: the risk of being fired. While you say your position is necessary for there to be "equality", in reality you're asking for risk-free strikes on part of the workers, while owners still have to foot the bill for strikes and lockdowns. Would you have the bill shared in the name of "equality"?

Now back to the "find it difficult to take serious" comment. Have you ever talked to people on the industry? Foremen, engineers, supervisors, managers? You'd find that frequently their opinions on unions are a full order of magnitude more extreme than mine. And no, this isn't restricted to Latin American uncivilised tribesmen. I know a lot of people from Whyalla and Port Kembla, and the opinions on most of them about unions and their "rights" is considerably below mine. In the US, I've heard many many people blame the demise of the American steel industry entirely on the steelworkers unions (something that I do not agree with at all, as there were many other factors, even though unions were one). "Hatred" is the appropriate term for their feelings.

So you not taking me seriously for my opinions on unions just go show you haven't been around too much, at least in the industry.

Understandable, perhaps, for people locked up in the government bureaucracy bubble.

It's not a debate when someone insists that their experience is representative of all, and ignores evidence to the contrary.

We've now had at least 3 people respond to luiz's claims that union bosses call strikes for their own personal gain but he doesn't acknowledge that he might be exaggerating.... and so it goes.

What evidence to the contrary was presented?

And when did I say that union bosses only call strikes to their own personal gain? What I said is that the bigger and more official the union, the more likely strikes and even bargaining will have less to do with the interests of workers and more to do with those of the leadership. And I think I did a decent job explaining why.

But go on and list all the evidence to the contrary you mentioned.

 

[Traitorfish]

What evidence to the contrary was presented?

You offered personal anecdotes in support of your position, a number of personal anecdotes were offered in support of the contrary position. That would appear to be sufficient, unless there's something about your anecdotes that renders them in some way superior to everyone else's.

 

[Arwon]

Australia has people who hate unions too? Colour me shocked!

Of course, even they don't agitate for the abolition of protected industrial action and arbitration, though they did attempt to massively re-regulate the system into an anti-worker framework whilst calling it "deregulation". If you don't think a protected bargaining process or independent arbitration mechanism should exist under the law at all, then you're actually more radical than basically all of the anti-worker side of politics in a country where being anti-union has literally been the raison d'etre and sole unifying cause of the right for a century.

Oh, and if you seriously think a strike is a risk-free action for workers, clearly you've never been on the picket line. Strikes are serious actions and not taken lightly.

And for the record, the biggest threat to the Australian steel industry is the high dollar resulting from the mining boom and the flow-on in terms of spiralling input costs that has caused.... not the existence of workers rights. After all, the industry has coped with workers having rights to protected bargaining and arbitration for a century and will continue to do so. Any axe-grinding by your mates from Port Kembla (I bet you guys are a barrel of laughs out at the pub) about the AMWU has nothing to do with the actual viability of the industry. The AMWU is basically the loudest and most effective voice out there trying to ensure the industry's future, like a responsible union does.

 

[luiz]

You offered personal anecdotes in support of your position, a number of personal anecdotes were offered in support of the contrary position. That would appear to be sufficient, unless there's something about your anecdotes that renders them in some way superior to everyone else's.

I offered my reasoning in suport of my position and used many personal anedoctes to illustrate my point. That's how I was taught to debate. I haven't seen any reasoning or anedocte to counter my proposition that large, official unions failt to be effective and appropriate in bargaining for workers. I have seen plenty of cheap one-liners and attempts at instant disqualification, though.

Australia has people who hate unions too? Colour me shocked!

Of course, even they don't agitate for the abolition of protected industrial action and arbitration, though they did attempt to massively re-regulate the system into an anti-worker framework whilst calling it "deregulation". If you don't think a protected bargaining process or independent arbitration mechanism should exist under the law at all, then you're actually more radical than basically all of the anti-worker side of politics in a country where being anti-union has literally been the raison d'etre and sole unifying cause of the right for a century.

Again, if you think the official position of Australian Liberal Party reflects the extent of the anti-union sentiment of a good many Australians in the industry, you're quite out of touch.

And for the record, I don't "agitate" for anything, much less the abolition of union privileges. It's my personal opinion. On a professional level I have to deal with unions all the time, and as I said my relation with them is quite easy and amicable, especially with union leaders. They are quite pragmatic fellows, from my experience anyway, even when they're inflexible there'a a calculation behind it all. It's just that I've found that the pragmatism and calculations can be more than a little self-serving, and not always to the best interest of workers.

Oh, and if you seriously think a strike is a risk-free action for workers, clearly you've never been on the picket line. Strikes are serious actions and not taken lightly.

I have been through a few picket lines, obviously never in one. I saw a lot more risk for those going through, like me, than for those in it. And a lot of people take strikes lightly indeed, precisely because there are no risks.

And for the record, the biggest threat to the Australian steel industry is the high dollar resulting from the mining boom and the flow-on in terms of spiralling input costs that has caused.... not the existence of workers rights. After all, the industry has coped with workers having rights to protected bargaining and arbitration for a century and will continue to do so. Any axe-grinding by your mates from Port Kembla (I bet you guys are a barrel of laughs out at the pub) about the AMWU has nothing to do with the actual viability of the industry. The AMWU is basically the loudest and most effective voice out there trying to ensure the industry's future, like a responsible union does.

For the record I said the people blaming unions for the demise of their steel industry are Americans, not Australians. This is a really common opinion among veterans of the American steel industry, even though it's clearly wrong IMO (unions did play an important role in the demise, but there were many other factors at play, including incompetent management).

The Australian steel industry has not met it's "demise" like the American, but folks dislike the unions almost as much.

Oh, and my friends and colleagues of Port Kembla and Whyalla are indeed a lot of fun. Awful football players, though.

 

[Cutlass]

That is demonstrably false.
Unions have far more privileges in Brazil than the US or even Europe, and yet they are not effective and are a huge drag for the overal economy.

If they have far more power, then how come the wages aren't rising faster? They can't really have very much. And there's no reason to believe they're a drag on the economy, unless you only want the failed program of exporting your way to prosperity. At some point in time production needs consumption. And it is the lack of consumption that is the primary drain on the world's economy these days.

 

[Tahuti]

And it is the lack of consumption that is the primary drain on the world's economy these days.

The lack of consumption is only problematic for the economy when the economy relies too much on wage labor.