Detroit files Chapter 9 Bankruptcy

[Homer_Rice]

Homer - I don't quite understand this thinking...  he wouldn't be getting any of the benefits that the union had already negotiated.  He'd be an "at will" employee, negotiating his own pay, benefits, could be terminated at any point, etc. and nothing would say the salary / benefit package had to be comparable to what the union had.  They could be worse, they could be better, they could be same.  Once he had the offer on the table it'd be for the potential at will worker to determine if he'd take the job or not.  Don't understand how that would be considered "corrupt"...

 

Yet, he'd be REQUIRED to pay an equal share (union dues) for NONE of the benefits.  That makes no sense.  But, alas, his only option at that point would be to go to a place that was not unionized.  So, guy that believes in unions, has always had a union job, needs a job and can go get one at a union or non-union workplace.  Guy that doesn't believe in unions, doesn't want a unionized job, needs a job can only get a job at a non-unionized workplace...

 

Seems fair.  :thumbsdown:

Your scenario is based on a false assumption. Folks hired into union shops are hired at the prevailing (and negotiated) wage scales and benefit programs. They do receive all of the benefits AND all of the protections negotiated by the union, including the ability to file grievances--this is the law.

 

Nice try, though.

[sois]

Your scenario is based on a false assumption. Folks hired into union shops are hired at the prevailing (and negotiated) wage scales and benefit programs. They do receive all of the benefits AND all of the protections negotiated by the union, including the ability to file grievances--this is the law.

 

Nice try, though.

 

This still doesn't make any sense.  Why do they have to offer the non-union employee the same benefits as the union guys?  

 

You make it sound like nothing is possible without unions.  I love my job.  We are super productive.  I negotiated my own salary.  How is it possible that our business is sound and I am happy without the mighty unions?

 

Competition drives the market too, not just unions.  If this company decided to cut benefits, I will be taking my talents elsewhere.  

 

Just as I can admit there was a time and place for unions, you may need to accept that unions are from a bygone era.

[Vol_Bengal]

 

 

Unions raise wages for everyone, not just union members. From the Economic Policy Institute...

 

http://www.epi.org/files/page/-/old/briefingpapers/143/bp143.pdf
 

Ok... so... what does that have to do with  allowing non-unionized employees to work at a unionized employer.

 

By what you're stating here me, working at a place without unions, should have to mail a check to the nearest IT union.  At least going by Homer's theory...

 

A - Homer says a non-union employee getting benefits that union employees get without paying the same "dues" is "corrupt".

B - You post article stating that ALL employee wages increase due to unions.

C - that would lead me to believe then that I, along with ALL of you non-union workers - you included Jamie, are corrupt as we're garnering a benefit bestowed upon us by a union that drove our wage scale up...  Damn... I'm corrupt.

[Vol_Bengal]

Your scenario is based on a false assumption. Folks hired into union shops are hired at the prevailing (and negotiated) wage scales and benefit programs. They do receive all of the benefits AND all of the protections negotiated by the union, including the ability to file grievances--this is the law.

 

Nice try, though.

What false assumption?  Not understanding how my scenario doesn't work just fine.

 

Employee negotiates WHATEVER package he can.  At some point the business says "final offer", employee then has decision to make.  Is the offer he's being given, which could be COMPLETELY different from what the union would guarantee, worth him going to work as an "at will" employee?  Yes, if you join the union you garner the benefits they've fought for as well as the protections they provide.

 

I'm not sure where you think I have a false assumption in anything I wrote.  Please point out my deficiency.

[Jamie_B]

Ok... so... what does that have to do with  allowing non-unionized employees to work at a unionized employer.

 

By what you're stating here me, working at a place without unions, should have to mail a check to the nearest IT union.  At least going by Homer's theory...

 

A - Homer says a non-union employee getting benefits that union employees get without paying the same "dues" is "corrupt".

B - You post article stating that ALL employee wages increase due to unions.

C - that would lead me to believe then that I, along with ALL of you non-union workers - you included Jamie, are corrupt as we're garnering a benefit bestowed upon us by a union that drove our wage scale up...  Damn... I'm corrupt.

 

 

I don't know about a check, but you at least owe them a thank you, or perhaps not contempt

[scharm]

 

What is the point of this article?  

 

PS, this point from #9 seems troubling:  "About half of Detroit’s debt is in municipal bonds. Most of the rest is in employee pensions and future health insurance payments. "

 

In what company is it a good practice to tie up half of your debt obligations toward pensions and health insurance?  Again, I don't think pensions are inherently bad, but they seem to have been grossly misused. 

 

Also, I don't even know if a pension would fall under the balance sheet or cash flow statement.  You can probably estimate the pension due, but this seems like a cash flow issue.  When you think of it that way, you aren't even factoring in salary.  So probably 3/4 of their "debt" is going to employee salaries.  Not good business.  

 

Detroit is in salary cap hell.

 

PS PS:  I always thought it would be a good movie plot for the city to hire a sniper to take out dudes who are collecting huge pensions/annuities and seem like they are going to live a long time.  The sniper could "eliminate the expense".  Starring Matt Damon as the analyst who notices the trend and exposes the masterminds.  

 

Pension liability is a balance sheet item and does not factor into cash flow until funding.

 

When companies and/or governing bodies get in trouble they typically find ways to not fund or not fund all of the pension liability putting it off.

[scharm]

 

Wait, so if I don't want to join a union I still have to pay a fee if there is a union involved but get none of the benefits?  That sounds corrupt?  What is the purpose of this?  

 

There are something like 24 states that are considered "right to work" which basically prevents this, I think. 

 

Meaning you can get benefits of a labor agreement and not be excluded because you don't pay dues.

[scharm]

 

Why can't they just pay me less?

 

Solidarity. 

[scharm]

 

This still doesn't make any sense.  Why do they have to offer the non-union employee the same benefits as the union guys?  

 

You make it sound like nothing is possible without unions.  I love my job.  We are super productive.  I negotiated my own salary.  How is it possible that our business is sound and I am happy without the mighty unions?

 

Competition drives the market too, not just unions.  If this company decided to cut benefits, I will be taking my talents elsewhere.  

 

Just as I can admit there was a time and place for unions, you may need to accept that unions are from a bygone era.

 

Just speaking from experience.   When the big guys want some more earnings to the bottom line they go after the non-union work forces first.  Cut hours.  Maybe pay cuts.

 

I think alot of Unions thinking is out dated and often drives jobs away.   However I think it's short sighted to not see the balancing effect.

 

Effective management is going to get a deal with the Union and an effective Union is going to perserve the rights/jobs of it's members.

 

Real life - 1,000 Union jobs were lost (transferred) by those individual people to other people in a different part of the United States simply because the Union dug their feet in over discipline and quality of work force.   Now the jobs stayed in US and probably will be union jobs before to long as they attempt to organize but their members got fucked blindly (because it was far enough away) over some dumb thinking of what amounted to the minority of the collective bargaining unit.

[Homer_Rice]

 

This still doesn't make any sense.  Why do they have to offer the non-union employee the same benefits as the union guys?  

 

You make it sound like nothing is possible without unions.  I love my job.  We are super productive.  I negotiated my own salary.  How is it possible that our business is sound and I am happy without the mighty unions?

 

Competition drives the market too, not just unions.  If this company decided to cut benefits, I will be taking my talents elsewhere.  

 

Just as I can admit there was a time and place for unions, you may need to accept that unions are from a bygone era.

Not sure what the difficulty is here. If you work in a unionized shop you get the benefits negotiated by the respective bargaining unit that applies to you. If you don't want to be a member, then you pay a fee equivalent to union dues. That money supports the negotiation expenses of the union, but does not go towards that union's political activity. (In some cases, I think this means the fee might be slightly less than full dues.)

 

As for the rest of your post...I have to ask...Do I seem like an idiot to you? Don't attribute claims to me that I have not made.

[sois]

 

Pension liability is a balance sheet item and does not factor into cash flow until funding.

 

When companies and/or governing bodies get in trouble they typically find ways to not fund or not fund all of the pension liability putting it off.

 

That seems like part of the problem to me.  DBP's can be easily fucked up or neglected and cripple a company.  DCP's cannot.  I don't think pensions are bad, I just don't think companies are competent enough to issue them.

[sois]

As for the rest of your post...I have to ask...Do I seem like an idiot to you? Don't attribute claims to me that I have not made.

 

Come on now.  You are smart, however you are coming across as very biased.

 

I am thankful for all unions did at one time in this country.  However, the training wheels are off now.  If things start to unravel again, I think unions should make a comeback.  

 

Unions are like crutches.  You don't use them all the time, especially after the issues have been mitigated.  If you keep using them, you get into an atrophied state.

[Vol_Bengal]

 

 

I don't know about a check, but you at least owe them a thank you, or perhaps not contempt

I didn't think I showed contempt.  I simply chimed in on the topic that sois and Homer were having regarding not being a union member yet still having to pay union dues.  That flowed to being the "corrupt" point of view, you posted your article which, with Homer's stance, paints me, you, and any other non-union employee as corrupt. 

 

To that insinuation, yes I showed contempt.  But I don't think I ever showed contempt in my arguments.

[Homer_Rice]

What false assumption?  Not understanding how my scenario doesn't work just fine.

 

Employee negotiates WHATEVER package he can.  At some point the business says "final offer", employee then has decision to make.  Is the offer he's being given, which could be COMPLETELY different from what the union would guarantee, worth him going to work as an "at will" employee?  Yes, if you join the union you garner the benefits they've fought for as well as the protections they provide.

 

I'm not sure where you think I have a false assumption in anything I wrote.  Please point out my deficiency.

The false assumption is that a potential employee cannot walk into a union shop and negotiate anything outside of previously agreed contractual obligations between a company and a bargaining unit. For example, you cannot enter into individual wage negotiations as one might in a non-union shop. You get slotted in with whatever the contract stipulates. Now, there are some areas of flexibility in many contracts--for example, if you have a level of experience that justifies a placement somewhat higher on the wage/seniority scale than a less experienced applicant. But it is all according to whatever contract is in place.

[Homer_Rice]

A - Homer says a non-union employee getting benefits that union employees get without paying the same "dues" is "corrupt".

B - You post article stating that ALL employee wages increase due to unions.

C - that would lead me to believe then that I, along with ALL of you non-union workers - you included Jamie, are corrupt as we're garnering a benefit bestowed upon us by a union that drove our wage scale up...  Damn... I'm corrupt.

It's not too much to ask that you accurately represent what I said, is it? Go back to what I actually said and please do not change my meanings.

[Homer_Rice]

 

Come on now.  You are smart, however you are coming across as very biased.

 

I am thankful for all unions did at one time in this country.  However, the training wheels are off now.  If things start to unravel again, I think unions should make a comeback.  

 

Unions are like crutches.  You don't use them all the time, especially after the issues have been mitigated.  If you keep using them, you get into an atrophied state.

Well, I am biased. But I'm not making the wild claims you attribute to me. I'm just explaining the mechanics here.

 

You are going to have to make a better argument than that. I'd suggest you examine the "if things unravel again" aspect of your approach. It makes me wonder if you have an accurate understanding of just what has been happening in the economy over the past few decades.

[sois]

Well, I am biased. But I'm not making the wild claims you attribute to me. I'm just explaining the mechanics here.

 

You are going to have to make a better argument than that. I'd suggest you examine the "if things unravel again" aspect of your approach. It makes me wonder if you have an accurate understanding of just what has been happening in the economy over the past few decades.

 

Alright, well let me ask you this:  if unions were to go away today, what would happen?

 

Instead of inferring what you are saying, I will just let you tell me.  

[Homer_Rice]

I didn't think I showed contempt.  I simply chimed in on the topic that sois and Homer were having regarding not being a union member yet still having to pay union dues.  That flowed to being the "corrupt" point of view, you posted your article which, with Homer's stance, paints me, you, and any other non-union employee as corrupt. 

 

To that insinuation, yes I showed contempt.  But I don't think I ever showed contempt in my arguments.

I'm going to guess that you glossed over my comment with respect to corruption because you took a pretty precise thought on my part and extended it to an area in which I made no claim. I was specific about the context, which was that you cannot walk into a union shop and expect to get something for nothing. I made no other claim.

 

Edit to add/reiterate for the purposes of clarification: If you work in a union shop, under the rules of a bargaining agreement, even if you don't want to be a member of the union, it is still one's obligation to support/help defray the costs of said bargaining because that bargaining includes you, even if you are a non-member. Now, As Scharm pointed out, the whole right-to-work aspect of things (where applicable) does allow some distinction between the negotiating aspect of union activity and other, mostly political, activity that a union engages in. You are under no obligation to contribute to, or support, those other activities if your conscience dictates otherwise.

[scharm]

 

Alright, well let me ask you this:  if unions were to go away today, what would happen?

 

Instead of inferring what you are saying, I will just let you tell me.  

 

More US jobs. 

[Homer_Rice]

 

Alright, well let me ask you this:  if unions were to go away today, what would happen?

 

Instead of inferring what you are saying, I will just let you tell me.  

Well, haven't unions pretty much already gone away for the most part? Look at membership statistics and the composition of the workforce over the past few decades.

 

If you are really serious, then instead of me telling you, why don't I offer some questions/areas for investigation which you can follow up on and make your own conclusions based on the effort you put into it?

 

1 ) Have living standards declined over the past 40 years?

 

2 ) Have wages/benefits kept up with price inflation over the past 40 years? What accounts for the disparity?

 

3 ) What has been the most prominent structural change in our economy since 1965? (Hint: look at economic activity and compare actual goods production to financial overhead over this period.)

 

4 ) What's all this hullaballoo over income disparities between the workforce versus management in this time frame?

 

5 ) Why, and from whence, has the notion of "shareholder value" become so prominent? Good or bad?

 

6 ) Aren't people at the bottom of the economic pile endowed with the same innate rights as those who are at the top of the pile? If so, then how has our political system performed in the past 40 years with respect to those innate rights?

[sois]

Well, haven't unions pretty much already gone away for the most part? Look at membership statistics and the composition of the workforce over the past few decades.

 

If you are really serious, then instead of me telling you, why don't I offer some questions/areas for investigation which you can follow up on and make your own conclusions based on the effort you put into it?

 

1 ) Have living standards declined over the past 40 years?

 

2 ) Have wages/benefits kept up with price inflation over the past 40 years? What accounts for the disparity?

 

3 ) What has been the most prominent structural change in our economy since 1965? (Hint: look at economic activity and compare actual goods production to financial overhead over this period.)

 

4 ) What's all this hullaballoo over income disparities between the workforce versus management in this time frame?

 

5 ) Why, and from whence, has the notion of "shareholder value" become so prominent? Good or bad?

 

6 ) Aren't people at the bottom of the economic pile endowed with the same innate rights as those who are at the top of the pile? If so, then how has our political system performed in the past 40 years with respect to those innate rights?

 

Before I go reaserch these, do you feel that decline of unions are a big reason behind these negative changes?  Cause I know I've talked about this before.

 

Correlation does not equal causality.  Hell, the rate of women in the workforce has a strong correlation to these issues. 

 

I preface this because I know I can answer lots of those questions with minimal attribution to the decline of unions.  However, I am inferring that you are saying that union declines are a driving force of these issues.  Correct?

[Homer_Rice]

No. You can correctly infer that these questions address your claim that unions are not necessary. And please, if you are going to be intellectually dishonest, then don't waste my time.

[sois]

No. You can correctly infer that these questions address your claim that unions are not necessary. And please, if you are going to be intellectually dishonest, then don't waste my time.

 

 

I'm not being dishonest.  You are just hellbent of stating the importance of unions over all other factors.  Hell, let's take one of your issues:  declining wages and salaries.  

 

Without any hardcorps research, I can tell you that exponential population growth and the shift from manufacturing to a service based economy is a common sense answer to why earnings are stagnant over the last 40 years.  Skilled labor is less necessary in a retail economy.  How can you refute this?  How can you say this doesn't hurt the average worker?  How does the influx of mexicans not hurt the average unskilled american worker?  Seems like those two things are big factors in the wage growth rate.  

 

A common sense analysis to me makes more sense than pinning the lowering of wages on the decline of unions.  

 

I guess if other factors are "a waste of your time" then I'm done here as well.  

 

It's all unions fault we have everything awesome.  The end.  

 

Detroit, jsut get more unions, everythign will be fixed after that.  

[Vol_Bengal]

It's not too much to ask that you accurately represent what I said, is it? Go back to what I actually said and please do not change my meanings.

 

 

Here is what you said... and I quote

 

But, don't expect to take advantage of the higher wages and benefits that a union shop negotiated for AND claim that you don't need to pay union dues or their equivalent because you claim you can "fend for yourself." That's the corrupt position.

 

And here is what I said... and I quote

 

Homer says a non-union employee getting benefits that union employees get without paying the same "dues" is "corrupt".

 

 

Where EXACTLY did I misrepresent what you said?  If me inferring "non-union employee" is the same as you saying "fend for yourself" is incorrect, by all means I beg your pardon.

[Vol_Bengal]

The false assumption is that a potential employee cannot walk into a union shop and negotiate anything outside of previously agreed contractual obligations between a company and a bargaining unit. For example, you cannot enter into individual wage negotiations as one might in a non-union shop. You get slotted in with whatever the contract stipulates. Now, there are some areas of flexibility in many contracts--for example, if you have a level of experience that justifies a placement somewhat higher on the wage/seniority scale than a less experienced applicant. But it is all according to whatever contract is in place.

With regard to this one... you talk over yourself.

 

You:  The false assumption is that a potential employee cannot walk into a union shop and negotiate anything outside of previously agreed contractual obligations between a company and a bargaining unit

Key word there is "cannot".

 

Then in your very example you pretty much state that they "cannot" do just that.  So my false assumption that they cannot, isn't actually false if, in fact illustrated by your example, they actually cannot negotiate outside of "slotted, negotiated contract stipulations"...