Government Threatens Back-to-work Legislation

Oh I totally know, I work for a security company on the civilian side. I hate how expendable Contract Security treats their employees, it's atrocious.

But if they aren't unionized, it doesn't really address the point. Unionized workers usually have it pretty good, you won't hear a whole lot of news about the unions and companies that work hand in hand and are content with their lot.

Can you give some specific examples of this, Barkey? It's easy to talk about both entities being potentially just as corrupt in vague terms, since they're meant to counterbalance each other, but I'm skeptical that unions have really cashed in over the same productivity benefits and tax breaks of the last decadeish in the same way that corporations have. If they were really doing that with any consistency, wouldn't we have a bigger middle class and less wealth disparity?

You say that corporations have no recourse against strikes, but the last major strike that I know anything about was the Writer's Guild one, and the WG got their asses handed to them at the end of it. I also know that teacher's unions are under attack pretty much everywhere, and their paychecks aren't anything to eyeball with envy.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

The stumbling block here, from what I can tell doesn't really seem to be about money. It's about having proper amounts of rest time between flights.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

There are unions which are comfortable with their bosses. Inco used to be pretty chill with their union, as the nickel bonus meant their wages could actually be pretty low (compared to others in the field) since they could get an extra 15/20,000 on a good year. Then Vale bought them out, cut the bonus and didn't raise wages. Let's not get too far into that though...

Unions are important, if you want proof look through history to the pre-union days or to foreign countries where there are no unions.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

The Grocery Store that I worked at some years back(vons) did something like that. They were getting great wages and benefits for the type of work they did, and when the company was suffering, they had to slash some of the benefits and the union striked.

I'm from a union family, and my dad was a teamster with Yellow Freight, some years back they had a strike under similar conditions. My dad didn't agree with it, but as a member of the union he couldn't come in and work for fear of being blackballed by the union itself. They had fair wages and good benefits but they striked because they wanted to stack the conditions even further in their favor.

I'm not saying Unions are bad, not by a long shot. Just that they aren't always good either.

edited 20th Sep '11 7:59:47 AM by Barkey

Alright, those are fair counterpoints, taking you at your word on them. A solution being imperfect does not justify tearing down the solution if you lack a better one, though, as the GOP are doing their best to do, and the current environment doesn't seem to justify attacking union corruption as a high priority. Can you show me a union that does as much harm as BP, or Wall Street, or the banking sector? Until you can, anti-union rhetoric just seems like a target dummy to distract people from far worse problems.

Edit: And to be even-handed, I'm not against any union reform proposals that actually include improvements that help to counterbalance both sides properly. IOW, if you've got any BETTER ideas, I'd be happy to hear 'em. But extracting a concession from (what looks to me to be) the weaker party on the scales without extracting one from the stronger party is just reverting us back to unionless society by inches, and I don't particularly care to rewind human progress like that.

edited 20th Sep '11 8:27:09 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

@Barkely, being a scab is seen as Serious Business though whether you agree with the reason they are striking or not.

edited 20th Sep '11 8:31:19 AM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

The problem here is right to strike. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the union's views. This is a matter to be settled by the corporation and the union they are hiring from. If the demands are unreasonable, then the public won't side with the union and the strike will fail. If the demands are reasonable, the strike will succeed. Sorta anyway (since media shapes public opinion and not the merits of the demands).

This is unreasonable government interference in the private market.

edited 20th Sep '11 8:45:01 AM by breadloaf

You're far too trusting of the public.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Agreed. Why would the public care about the Union being mistreated if a strike means they can't get what they want from the company? Same with how the average person doesn't care about corporate welfare.

Breadloaf hits the nail right on the head: Government breaking a strike is an unacceptable intrusion in the collective bargaining process: The Harper Government should get a crippling general strike as retaliation: Ideally, one of an unlimited duration (aka strike until the government falls).

A full-blown week of general strike would bring any government to its knees.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Public opinion doesn't mean shit for a strike, it's essentially a mexican standoff where the workers see how long they can go without pay and the business sees how long it can go without profit.

I live in a port town, and I have a lot of friends who are longshoremen. In my opinion, they are extremely overpaid for what they do, but the port and the union seem to get on pretty well with eachother, which is a good thing I guess.

You said 30 an hour for longshoremen? That's a decent living wage to me. When you hit the 21/hour mark is when you start hitting what I call the low-income poverty line.

I think everyone else is underpaid is what.

And yeah the public isn't exactly known for very good responses in terms of union strikes (way too easy to demonise against the much more financially superior corporations able to feed the media big wads of cash). But I'm not pro or anti union, I just want people paid for their value add not "the lowest possible salary". It's what I call labour market failure.

Jeez, and I thought $14/hr as an intern with a 2-hour round trip commute was a decent wage to live on, at least for myself.

I mean granted I don't spend money on smoking, drinking, etc., but it's still enough to live comfortably and have enough left over for games and save up for a vacation. If I had a roommate I'd have another ~$300/mo on top of that.

edited 20th Sep '11 1:28:50 PM by Pykrete

No, doesn't quite work that way here. In Southern California, where we have one of the highest costs of living in the US, 14 an hour is more like the poverty line. 18 and up and you've got smooth sailing if you don't have a family.

Where in the world is USD$21/hour the poverty line?

And yes, I'm assuming a 40-hour work week here.

edited 20th Sep '11 1:51:08 PM by Ratix

I'd guess maybe someplace like Tokyo.

Are we assuming eight hour work days? If so, 21 bucks an hour averages out to a yearly salary of about 40,000.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

The 40k line is considered the low-income poverty line in Canada, which begins your entitlement to cheapened goods and sales tax rebates. So, your question to where in the world is it considered poverty is... the country right next to yours. :)

Also I meant it in terms of combined family income.

edited 20th Sep '11 2:26:12 PM by breadloaf

...$21 is poverty line?

...

...

I have no words to describe how disturbingly strange an idea that is. Is the rest of the world really that much higher in average living wages...?

...

0_o

edited 20th Sep '11 2:29:21 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

No, the UK minimum wage is £6.00ish outside of London

$21 is like more than £6.

Dutch Lesbian

^ We were talking about poverty line not minimum wage.

Poverty rates in the UK in terms of income per week.

• Single person, no children £124

• Couple with no children £214

• Lone parent with two children (aged 5 and 14) £256

• Couple with two children (aged 5 and 14) £348

edited 20th Sep '11 2:41:43 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

Edit: nevermind, misread.

edited 20th Sep '11 2:46:02 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

This post was thumped by the Eldritch Flyswatter of Horror

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry