Detroit files Chapter 9 Bankruptcy

[Homer_Rice]

 

 

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.

You don't have to beg. All I asked is that you do not misrepresent me--the which, by the way, you have done again, right here. So now my question is this: Did you do it maliciously on this go 'round? You had to edit what I said to get the meaning you want. And in doing so, you changed the meaning of what I claimed.

 

Here is the entire quote of what I said in response to sois and his introduction of corruption into the discussion:

 

You are under no obligation to take employment in a union shop if you don't want to be in a union. 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. Just go work in a non-union shop. More power to you.

You conveniently left out my first sentence which sets the context for my remark. That, EXACTLY, is your misrepresentation.

 

What is interesting to me is that you did this despite my second, clarifying remark:

 

 

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.

Does this clarify the matter for you?

[Homer_Rice]

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"...

 

Here is the complete post you made which contains the false assumption:

 

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:

I suppose I could have worded it better, but my error was in thinking that you actually remembered what you had previously said. A person cannot walk into a union shop and do an at-will type of negotiation. To clarify, your false assumption was that a person "could do" what I then said they "could not do."

[Homer_Rice]

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.  

But I am not. In fact, I was critical of current-day unions in an earlier post in this thread. The point I am trying to make here is that unions and their place as a factor amongst other factors is important. Why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition for you?

 

In my previous post I didn't mention globalization in my questions, but, as you allude, that is a factor in this, too. Why has our domestic economy shifted from a manufacturing basis to a service sector? What were the political impulses behind this shift? That's the sort of thing I urge you to do some "hardcorps" research into.

 

I know you are the King of TL;DR, when you do your snarky thing, but if you really want to understand our economic decline over the last 40 years--and all the factors which contribute to it--then you'll have to dig a little. It's your choice. I'd urge you to do the work. At the least, it'll keep you from making really ignorant remarks like this:

 

 

Unions were cool at one time, but they should definitely expire.  Lots of those problems you listed are already fixed.  Do you keep going to the doctor for a broken leg that healed 50 years ago?

 

and this:

 

 

If you undo unions, is child labor and sweatshops going to happen?  Not with the current laws.  I don't have a union and my company is doing just fine, so are the employees.

 

and this:

 

 

I do think unions had a place and time in America.  I don't think that time is now.  I just don't think they've done a good job in these auto union heavy states.

 

and this:

 

 

Would all industries be better with unions?  I just don't see the need in 2013.  I don't buy the slippery slope BS that everything will revert to shitty conditions.

[Vol_Bengal]

 

Here is the complete post you made which contains the false assumption:

I suppose I could have worded it better, but my error was in thinking that you actually remembered what you had previously said. A person cannot walk into a union shop and do an at-will type of negotiation. To clarify, your false assumption was that a person "could do" what I then said they "could not do."

 

Homer - why all the haughty retorts you've seemed to lean toward these days with regard to most topics...  I've noticed it in the last several topics and thought it wasn't your style previously but its starting to become the norm it seems.  It comes across as "holier than though" and elitist.  Maybe that is the lean you're attempting to portray - don't know.  Just an observation on my part.  Take it for what it is.

 

As for my example I'd posted and you said was a false assumption... I understand where you're coming from now.  You're correct - it would have been a false assumption had I been actually assuming that could occur.  I don't assume that - I was making the case for "why can't that be how it works"?  I already knew the answer to that... you won't have a unionized and non-unionized workplace covering the same job set... the unions won't allow it.

[sois]

At the least, it'll keep you from making really ignorant remarks like this:

 

 

 

You have become dishonourable and petty.  

 

The first statement quoted is a fact.  Many of the labor issues that unions once fought for are now law.  How can you dispute this?

Second is also fact.  Child labor laws will not go away if unions cease to exist.  Again, how do you dispute this?

 

The other two are just my opinion.  I don't see anything blatantly ignorant about them.  I don't see an overwhelming need for unions.  Why is that so bad?  I'm from Texas and I don't remember unions at all there.  It seems to be doing just fine.  Unemployment is low and wages are high.

 

You can't just keep throwing this "do your research" line at me.  I will do my research.  However, until then, I expect a compelling reason if you want me to see your point of view.  That's what a discussion is about.  Right now, I don't see a real need for unions.  "You're ignorant" and "do your research" is not a good case for unions.  I do believe they were once awesome.  Not so much these days.  Just as a blacksmith is a relic, so are unions, IMO.  

 

And if I'm not allowed to have an opinion, fuck you, homie. 

[T-Dub]

 

 

Child labor laws will not go away if unions cease to exist. 

 

 

Probably not.  Child labor would still be much cheaper & easier overseas.

[sois]

 

 

 

 

Probably not.  Child labor would still be much cheaper & easier overseas.

 

 

Overseas needs unions.  See, I love unions.  

[Jamie_B]

 

You have become dishonourable and petty.  

 

The first statement quoted is a fact.  Many of the labor issues that unions once fought for are now law.  How can you dispute this?

Second is also fact.  Child labor laws will not go away if unions cease to exist.  Again, how do you dispute this?

 

The other two are just my opinion.  I don't see anything blatantly ignorant about them.  I don't see an overwhelming need for unions.  Why is that so bad?  I'm from Texas and I don't remember unions at all there.  It seems to be doing just fine.  Unemployment is low and wages are high.

 

You can't just keep throwing this "do your research" line at me.  I will do my research.  However, until then, I expect a compelling reason if you want me to see your point of view.  That's what a discussion is about.  Right now, I don't see a real need for unions.  "You're ignorant" and "do your research" is not a good case for unions.  I do believe they were once awesome.  Not so much these days.  Just as a blacksmith is a relic, so are unions, IMO.  

 

And if I'm not allowed to have an opinion, fuck you, homie. 

 

 

LOL wut?
 

Or...
 

[sois]

 

 

LOL wut?

 

That article is kind of garbage.  If you don't skew the charts and show the whole contry, texas is not as shitty as they paint it.  Same source, updated data, whole picture.

 

 

 

 

also, sicne the end of the great recession,  texas unemployment has been among the lowest, even compared to those precious states the author pointed out as so much better than texas. 

 

 

 

All data from BLS and FRED.  So, no made up shit here.

[Jamie_B]

BLS

 

To note...

 

"In 2012, Texas’ proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage ranked second among the 50 states and the District of Columbia."

[sois]

BLS

 

To note...

 

"In 2012, Texas’ proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage ranked second among the 50 states and the District of Columbia."

 

Ok.  That may be true, but that doesn't mean there aren't high wages.  There are just more low-skilled workers finding jobs.  I guess that's the trade off when you have low unemployment.  Fair point I suppose.  Texas sucks cause they have more jobs for everyone.  

[Jamie_B]

I dont think wages and unemployment are related to be honest, at least not in the way that says you get more jobs if you lower peoples wages. I think that if wages were higher you get people with more purchasing power which would lower unemployment.

[sois]

I dont think wages and unemployment are related to be honest, at least not in the way that says you get more jobs if you lower peoples wages. I think that if wages were higher you get people with more purchasing power which would lower unemployment.

 

This is going to become circular.  If wages are higher, companies hire less people.  

[Homer_Rice]

 

Homer - why all the haughty retorts you've seemed to lean toward these days with regard to most topics...  I've noticed it in the last several topics and thought it wasn't your style previously but its starting to become the norm it seems.  It comes across as "holier than though" and elitist.  Maybe that is the lean you're attempting to portray - don't know.  Just an observation on my part.  Take it for what it is.

 

As for my example I'd posted and you said was a false assumption... I understand where you're coming from now.  You're correct - it would have been a false assumption had I been actually assuming that could occur.  I don't assume that - I was making the case for "why can't that be how it works"?  I already knew the answer to that... you won't have a unionized and non-unionized workplace covering the same job set... the unions won't allow it.

Which haughty remarks? You mean the ones where I call out some sick racist bullshit or this one when I simply ask that you not twist my words to make a bullshit argument for corruption? That's pretty much been the extent of my posting recently.

 

You have become dishonourable and petty.  

 

The first statement quoted is a fact.  Many of the labor issues that unions once fought for are now law.  How can you dispute this?

Second is also fact.  Child labor laws will not go away if unions cease to exist.  Again, how do you dispute this?

 

The other two are just my opinion.  I don't see anything blatantly ignorant about them.  I don't see an overwhelming need for unions.  Why is that so bad?  I'm from Texas and I don't remember unions at all there.  It seems to be doing just fine.  Unemployment is low and wages are high.

 

You can't just keep throwing this "do your research" line at me.  I will do my research.  However, until then, I expect a compelling reason if you want me to see your point of view.  That's what a discussion is about.  Right now, I don't see a real need for unions.  "You're ignorant" and "do your research" is not a good case for unions.  I do believe they were once awesome.  Not so much these days.  Just as a blacksmith is a relic, so are unions, IMO.  

 

And if I'm not allowed to have an opinion, fuck you, homie. 

This is a gay post. But at least you tried to be classy by giving a Brit spelling.

[sois]

This is a gay post. But at least you tried to be classy by giving a Brit spelling.

 

Hahahahah that's awesome!  +1

 

Homer Rice, I think y'ure cool again

[Jamie_B]

 

This is going to become circular.  If wages are higher, companies hire less people.  

 

 

I disagree.

 

If the demand is there they higher, they only dont hire if its not, or if they can replace employees with technology or increased productivity or longer hours (notice the move to eliminate overtime?) so that they can maximize proffits. An increase in wages by itself doesnt mean they higher less, if the demand goes up they will higher more.