TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#43476: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:28:12 PM

Let's look at it this way, in Chicago, the city I live in, the living wage (the amount of money you need to have food, the most basic of medical care, a roof over your head, clothing, and the ability to get transportation to work is $10.48. The minimum wage is $8.00.

You can work 40+ hours a week at minimum wage and not earn enough that you can feed yourself. Goddess forbid you get sick or get fired or the place you work for goes out of business.

And that's only for one person. It's $20.86 for an adult and a child. That means a single mother can work 80+ hours a week at minimum wage and still have their child starve.

There's a point where we have to step in and stop people from starving on the streets.

This is where unions come in. Unions can negotiate for their workers to be paid enough money to live on so that they don't have to rely on government handouts on top of working themselves to the bone.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43477: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:29:41 PM

To add to my earlier post, the proper metric for evaluating a particular "intrusion" on liberty is to ask the question: what is the cost of this to the individual/society versus the aggregate benefit/harm to the individual and to society?

Mandatory union participation costs the individual a small amount of money and a negligible time commitment unless they become involved in leadership. The benefit they gain is the ability to negotiate for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, or to maintain said positions against attempts to take them away.

So if you have to pay $100/month (I'm tossing out hypotheticals here, I have no idea what union dues are) in dues, but in return you get or retain benefits and pay that add up to $1000/month, you're ahead by any definition. Further, you increase the overall bargaining power of your union, which makes it easier to gain and retain those benefits.

Now it's also easy to see what unions cost employers: that is, those higher wages and benefits that could be going instead to profits, dividends, and executive compensation; plus lost revenue from strikes. So when you look at it from that perspective, it's easy to see why business owners would be anti-union and push for anything that weakens them.

Of course, the result of this is that they can pay a person less than it costs for that person to eat and have a home to live in. That's reprehensible in a modern society.

edited 11th Dec '12 12:32:02 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43478: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:31:38 PM

@Midget - I get where you're coming from, but that sounds an awful lot like "Our wrong isn't as bad as your wrong."

We need to dispel the wrong idea that socialism is about handouts, because it's not that at all.

Well, part of the issue is that when you talk about the drawbacks of socialism, and say that several times it's perverted into promoting loafism, it gets ignored.

What I'd like to see is both sides stop saying "Well our way works. The times it doesn't, well who cares?" I want both sides to actually look at the other side and say "Okay, that part works."

I want a system where unions don't create a situation in which one need only show up and they're automatically a competent worker, nor do I want a situation in which, as Fighteer pointed out, you get a CEO making $4 million a year saying he simply must cut salaries if they company is going to survive.

edited 11th Dec '12 12:32:50 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#43479: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:31:42 PM

On a philosophical level, I can't help but wonder if unions couldn't be replaced in their role by more effective government regulation. The basic idea of needing to 'bargain' your way up to something that theoretically rightfully should be yours to begin with seems a bit absurd to me. If you really need/deserve it, mandate it legally - and if you don't need/deserve it you shouldn't need the capability to bargain for it.

More concretely, I'm starting to think this way because A) the unions have lost the publicity fight, big time, and B) it's really not hard to think of scenarios where there was a union that was still completely ineffectual at its supposed role. Anyone remember the last writer's guild strike? They got trounced. Soundly. Just having a union in place doesn't seem like it's enough.

Unions strike me as similar to the tax loophole incentives that 'gently encourage' businesses to 'do the right thing,' instead of just having the government tell them to do what they need to do in the first place. And then this encouragement gets treated as being just as tyrannical as forcing their hands anyway, so why even have the middleman?

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43480: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:33:40 PM

I agree that dumping unions and making all this employment stuff mandatory at the federal level would be ideal — after all, the government is the biggest collective bargainer that there is. Of course, MAH FREEDOM!

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43481: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:36:10 PM

I was actually thinking the same exact thing Kark. It seems that unions are trying to do the job of government, but they get to mix their own pet agenda that may or may not actually have anything to do with worker welfare.

And the unions didn't just lose because they fail at publicity. The worst hit to their image is that, for me at least, here in NYC, the stereotype of the entitled union worker whose answer to any request is "that's not my job" isn't a stereotype. Not to mention that a union seems to kick up a fuss if you want to switch to flourescent rather than incandescent bulbs, and people start to say "Why are you here again?"

It was an honor
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#43482: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:36:16 PM

Unions lose the publicity battle because they aren't the people with the money, they aren't the ones who run the media, and people only see them as an inconvenience when someone else goes on strike. We have a very hard time sympathizing with other people in the US because of this completely ridiculous bootstraps idea.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43483: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:37:04 PM

Exactly how often does the union result in someone getting paid for doing nothing, though? Because if you're going to claim that you need more than anecdotes or hearsay. You can't prevent something like that without proof, and determining what the cause is. You haven't even stated a cause, just told us what amounts to gossip, Maxima.

On the union's side, we have plenty of statistics about how unions benefit employees vs how employees in states without unions do. And it's a well documented but poorly communicated fact that Right to Work states pay their employees far less than the Union states.

Seriously, unions need to learn how to market their message better.

Edit: Ideally, unions basically help to enforce government regulations because they give the people a platform for discussing what they thing are problems with various minutae in the business world. That's how it works in the Nordic Model: Unions, employers, and the government all work together, instead of against each other.

edited 11th Dec '12 12:38:36 PM by AceofSpades

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43484: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:39:36 PM

We have a hard time sympathizing with people when you say "Well, I'm pulling my weight. Why can't you?", and they respond with "I'm Union."

It was an honor
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43485: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:40:47 PM

That statement explains precisely nothing, Maxima. And answers nothing in my post.

edited 11th Dec '12 12:41:04 PM by AceofSpades

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43486: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:45:36 PM

The jobs bank isn't heresay. It's a real thing.

Additionally, of course the union will have a ton of nice stats about how they benefit their workers. And the thing is, nobody doubts or argues against that. Unions are a good thing.

But anybody can Google how notoriously it is to fire, say...school teachers, as but one example. And yes, note where those links come from. Here's another.

I'm sure a union wouldn't have any studies on the effects on this sort of thing.

That statement explains precisely nothing, Maxima. And answers nothing in my post.

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Your post, well researched and full of links as it is, does nothing to answer my question.

The people who rely on union workers doing their jobs and have to deal with a worker who sees no reason to provide service is not placated by your links.

This is something that needs to be actually addressed.

That's how it works in the Nordic Model: Unions, employers, and the government all work together, instead of against each other.

And I'd like to see that happen. But that can't as long as unions gloss over and ignore their issues because "Well hey, studies say we're awesome beside all that."

edited 11th Dec '12 12:56:27 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#43487: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:55:32 PM

Starship: Lazy people will be lazy if they have unions or not. The fact that lazy people use unions as an excuse to be lazy has nothing to do with unions themselves. If the same person said "That's not my job" but didn't blame the union, you'd rightly just call them a lazy ass.

As for job banks, those exist because of massive firings of people in order to put in non-union employees and minorities, and they were invented as a way to keep that from happening. Basically, they wanted employers to only fire people for good reasons. They were necessary when they were invented, but they're a good idea at the time that hasn't aged well as the world has changed around them.

edited 11th Dec '12 12:57:00 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#43488: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:56:19 PM

The people who rely on union workers doing their jobs and have to deal with a worker who sees no reason to provide service is not placated by your links.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but working a minimum wage job with the prospect of getting fired so the company doesn't have to give you a raise doesn't really give us a good reason to provide service either.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43489: Dec 11th 2012 at 12:59:35 PM

Let me put this simply; until union supporters, and really the liberal left in general, stop excusing away and dismissing the problems in their models, you can count on support eroding even further.

I don't want unions to disappear and thus allow "management" to shift jobs to whatever third-world country will take them, and then bring them back when hunger and desperation makes an American worker more 'amenable to some adjustments'.

But I also don't unions to become this privileged clique in which they basically assume the same "we are untouchable" attitude as the people they oppose.

In short, I don't know why accountability has to be one side or the other, rather than both.

edited 11th Dec '12 1:00:42 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43490: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:04:32 PM

You don't want to get me started on teachers, Maxima. My mother is one. My sister is one. Teachers get the shit end of the deal for being one of the most disrespected and poorly paid professions in this country. That they make it as hard as possible to fire people is not surprising; at every corner there's an attack on their pay and benefits and government attempts by conservatives to fire them in droves. Teachers are quite often waging a war just to defend themselves. And if the profession was more profitable (but oh no a teacher pay raise requires a tax rise, and people seem not to consider that teachers are also tax payers) so that it could attract more qualified people. Then there's the ridiculous requirement for coaches to teach, that has led directly to most of our history teachers being completely unqualified to teach the goddamn subject. (Which has led to whole host of other problems that are off topic.) Teachers are living in a situation where making it easier to fire bad teachers makes it easier to fire any one of them for any damn reason at all.

And I've pointed out before it would be easier to fire bad teachers or not hire them in the first place if we reformed the education system, but that's somewhat off the topic of unions specifically. (Things like peer review and stricter qualifications for teaching the material, as well as more teacher control over what we test for.) I could go on, but this is probably more appropriate to the original education reform thread. And I've probably said this a half dozen times there already.

And I have to ask about what services got denied and what the statistics are. Hell, if they're not doing their job then this is something government or the employer should bring up, because that's part of fucking negotiation. It is not, however, a reason to demolish the unions as a whole. We fucking need them, including you, or we'd get peanuts and wealth stratification like we had in the eighteen hundreds or worse. I don't feel like I can answer the question adequately with more than the gossip you've provided.

As for the Jobs bank, that's kind of weird, but it seems like a stopgap measure put in place to prevent people from losing a paycheck they depend on, and that whoever is directing it needs to be more creative in finding something for those folks to do while things recover. That some people end up doing nothing seems the fault of management in this case.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#43491: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:06:42 PM

Yeah, gonna have to chip in agreement on teachers' unions being pretty damn corrupt — I mean, this is an institution that regularly eclipses the Catholic sex abuse scandals with the exact same carpet-sweeping. Which sucks double because they're also just about the only force keeping public education from being driven to outright bankruptcy through budget/wage cuts.

edited 11th Dec '12 1:09:44 PM by Pykrete

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#43492: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:07:33 PM

It is on both sides, but one side has vastly more power than the other even if that side is organized. Even with unions, most people can't seem to negotiate enough money to live on. They don't have that much power to start with and they have about as much corruption on average as any organization of people.

People in large groups in general are prone to corruption. Corporations are the biggest groups of all.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43493: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:08:04 PM

One problem with unions in those situations is that they can end up being just as if not more conservative than the businesses they bargain with, in the name of job preservation. For example, teachers' unions and local school boards have been the driving force preventing modernization of our public schooling systems and methods. If there's a risk that it could cost jobs or that it would require extensive retraining/reinvestment in labor, unions tend to oppose it.

However, I have no choice but to accept those problems when the alternative is slave labor wages.

edited 11th Dec '12 1:09:11 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43494: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:13:38 PM

Teachers basically just get the short end of the stick because somehow it's gotten incredibly popular to hate on school in this country. And this is probably almost entirely separate from Republican moves against unions, as the disrespect appears across all boundaries.

And let's face it, we don't have high standards for teachers. They make PE teachers teach some other class, and those guys will just decide to teach history, because you're not even required to have a BA or other degree in order to teach it. All this on the idea that this will somehow prevent child molestation, at least partially. And it is all fucking ridiculous and damaging to our students.

The only reason my mother's so good at her subject is because she held herself to that standard. And she came from the era when getting an education didn't completely bankrupt you like it does now.

Boy, I bet no one can tell that education is my one serious wonk, huh?

edited 11th Dec '12 1:15:10 PM by AceofSpades

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43495: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:18:29 PM

I hate to ignore the rest of that wonderful post but one thing jumped out at me. PE teachers are required to teach another subject and they don't even need a BA for history? Really? That seems ridiculous. Most of the PE teachers at my school just watch study halls between gym classes.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#43496: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:20:07 PM

[up] I know that Oklahoma didn't require teachers to hold a degree in the subject they were teaching either.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43497: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:21:32 PM

Then your school handles that requirement a good deal more wisely. But yeah, I got that information from "Lies Your Teacher Told You". Which is largely about how poorly history is taught in school, and how it gets perpetuated through the system. At the time of the books publishing (it's fairly recent, but information like this can get dated pretty quickly) only about forty percent of history teachers had actually taken history as a major, or even a subject with some history in it.

Hmm. Uh, I guess we should move this part of the conversation to the Education reform thread, though. We're on a bit of a derail now.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43498: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:21:56 PM

[up][up]That is absurd. Why don't they require that? I'm pretty sure in PA you need to have a specific degree in your topic beyond the 6th grade level.

edited 11th Dec '12 1:22:39 PM by Kostya

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43499: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:23:38 PM

However, I have no choice but to accept those problems when the alternative is slave labor wages.

False Dichotomy in the extreme. I choose to Take a Third Option and say, "How about you actually address these issues instead of saying 'We should get a free pass because whatever'."

Honestly, why is there this steadfast refusal to get unions to at least admit they have issues with corruption and protecting the underperforming??

It was an honor
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43500: Dec 11th 2012 at 1:23:40 PM

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13309961410A58884400&page=13#305 For the derail

As for why: I'm not entirely sure, but I think it can vary from state to state what they require of their teachers. Which leads to some... very uneven results.

[up]We don't see that the unions are underperforming enough to not defend them. And I live in a Right to Work state where we're negatively affected largely by not having organized unions, so I end up seeing the bad results of not having one a lot more than actually having one.

edited 11th Dec '12 1:25:03 PM by AceofSpades


Total posts: 417,856
Top