Verizon Employees End Strike

An anonymous reader writes "Verizon today announced that the approximately 45,000 wireline employees represented by the CWA and IBEW that have been on strike will return to work beginning Monday night, August 22nd, without new collective bargaining agreements. Since the strike began two weeks ago, Verizon has been battling criminal acts of sabotage against its network facilities and union picketers intimidating non-union replacement workers and illegally blocking garage and work center entrances. One union picketer even went as far as to instruct his young daughter to stand in front of a Verizon truck to illegally block it from coming back to a Verizon work center in New Jersey. Verizon said the wireline employees now on strike would be working under the terms of the contracts that expired on Saturday, August 6th. The contracts will be extended with no specific deadline for achieving new collective bargaining agreements so that the parties can take the time required to resolve the critical issues, the company said."

Comments

2 weeks?

[GeorgeMonroy]

That is not enough to make a company listen to you.

Re:2 weeks?

[crashumbc]

But the union won... They were fine with the current contracts, the issue was Verizon wanted the gut health care and retirement benefits. So going back to work under the old contract is a win for them...

Re:2 weeks?

[cob666]

Gut health care? Making union employees pay for a portion of their health care like every non union employee does is gutting?

Re:2 weeks?

[datapharmer]

Yes. Getting rid of benefits with no replacement is gutting. Now if they wanted to raise everyone's pay by the amount it would cost for them to each individually replace this benefit then fine, but they are essentially decreasing the salary of the workers.

Re:2 weeks?

[mikelieman]

Don't you understand that when you take a job, you negotiate for a "Total Compensation" package. If the value of that is $100,000, and $25,000 of it is in 'benefits', if you cut the 'benefits' by $10,000 you need to INCREASE TAKE HOME PAY by ten grand PLUS the lost tax benefit...

In other words, you don't SAVE any money by cutting benefits, because unless your goal is to FUCK PEOPLE OVER, then you're going to be increasing their take home, so your "Total Comp" package remains the same....

Re:2 weeks?

[cob666]

So, following your logic: If an employee has a contract for total compensation of X dollars which includes $1000 per month in health insurance. When the insurance premiums go up 10% the following year, the union employee should then pay the extra $100 because the contract was for a fixed amount? The article mentioned that the contract had expired, I see NOTHING wrong with a new contract that requires that ALL employees pay a portion of health care costs.

In the real (non union) world you don't negotiate for 'Total Compensation' in dollars, you negotiate for salary (which is usually a fixed amount) and benefits (which are usually not fixed).

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

How cute that you think union workers don't live in the real world.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

If an employee has a contract for total compensation of X dollars which includes $1000 per month in health insurance. When the insurance premiums go up 10% the following year, the union employee should then pay the extra $100

Funny, that's what happens every year at my job. If you're trying to claim some shocking thing to make the other person's suggestion look bad, you need to pick something more shocking. Like how hyperinflation making the dollar worthless means the person still only gets X dollars (OH WAIT, that's how it works in the real world too!)

If you wanted to be REALLY shocking, you'd tell us how employers would pay employees more if the employment taxes went down (HAW HAW HAW). Look, we're all big boys here, we're fully aware that employers fuck employees over every chance they get. You don't need to make up this bullshit to sugarcoat it for us.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a non-union, private company job and I don't contribute to my healthcare costs. My questions for you: Why should I begrudge someone getting better pay or benefits than I get? If someone makes better pay than I do, should I complain and ask them to take a pay cut? Because that is what you're advocating.

And asking the workers to pay into their healthcare costs equals taking a pay cut. If my company asked me to take a pay cut, and I was working for a company that made billions in profit last year, I'd be pretty passed, too.

Re:2 weeks?

[shoehornjob]

Well they sure do live in a different world that those of us that are not union.

Re:2 weeks?

[yourmommycalled]

Let's see, the UNION employee's NEGOTIATED a CONTRACT that said the company would pay health care costs in place of salary increase and then the company tried to force UNION employees to pay for health care. YOU object because you don't want to or cann't belong to a union and your CONTRACT does pay you're health care cost AND you don't get a salary increase. You want to break up the unions because of that. To me it sounds like you're jealous and whining becuase you made the wrong choice

Re:2 weeks?

[yourmommycalled]

No the union members live in the real world, you are just jealous that you don't

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

Perhaps one where the balance of power is only 97% swung towards the corporate overlords, instead of 99.97%.

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

I wish for all fellow men to get all kinds of benefits as long as they are not getting it from my profit.

I am willing to provide benefits to anybody by doing work and the result of my work being the benefit to the society and the fellow man, who is then richer due to the products that I am creating. I want to be richer due to the products that the fellow man is creating.

I absolutely am not interested in any government dictating that some fellow man get more than they are producing not based on market forces but based on government putting a gun to an employer's head. I am absolutely not interested to have my profits taken away and shared among those, who didn't work for them by the force of government.

We all benefit from a working economy, and government intervention does not help economy but destroys it.

AFAIC there must be no public unions of any kind, it needs to be illegal to have public unions, where union members negotiate not with their employers - tax payers, but with their co-conspirators in the great tax payer heist - politicians.

As to private unions - they are fine, as long as there are no labor laws passed by government that change the power dynamic between the private business and private labor. It's their business, they can deal with their matters in court if any contractual obligations are violated. Beyond that there must be no government involvement into labor or business.

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

well, I live in a different world altogether - I live under a national healthcare system, so the reason these particular strikes started in the first place was solved for us as a nation after WW2.

Here in the real world, everyone but the US solved this problem too, but in 2011 the supposed "leader of the world" is the last major developed nation to have such a backward, broken healthcare system.

I'm certainly not jealous, not even a little bit.

(And disclaimer, I have lived under both systems.)

Re:2 weeks?

[pagedout]

I find it funny that you would regard something like that as shocking at all or even think that they were trying for shocking. I make X my costs are Y I want to see a return on my investment of Z. My costs go up, due to anything not just increased health care costs, so either I need to charge more or cut some costs... Seems pretty simple to me.

As for the whole "companies are out to get you" rant, you know after 15 years of working at 5 jobs (from cashier guy to engineer) I can truthfully say I have yet to be employed by a company that is out to do their employees harm. In fact most of them seem to bend too far the other way by adopting union like policies akin to tenure that coddle people and kill there drive to excel.

But that's just what I have seen,

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need to form a union if you do not have what union employees have.

The goal is not to race to the bottom - it's to hold up your co workers and your community.

It won't kill the company to support you with a little health care. I'm sure your CEO has a health plan...

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn, why do they separate it out like that? I guess there is precedent - my dental plan and eye care plan are separated out of my normal health care plan. But a special gut health care plan? I think my gut should be covered just like my other organs, arms, legs, etc.

Re:2 weeks?

[iamhassi]

Gut health care? Making union employees pay for a portion of their health care like every non union employee does is gutting?

Take away what they already had? That's gutting.

If they don't want to provide that to future new hires that's fine, but to start work and be told "ya... we're gonna need to take away what we told you to expect...." is pretty shitty.

Re:2 weeks?

[Dahamma]

Health care benefits are just another piece of an employee's compensation package. Making an employee pay for more of it is the same as making them take a pay cut. Who knows, maybe they are all overpaid and Verizon needs to cut their compensation to stay profitable (though with a net income $2.5B last year, I doubt it). But don't play their game and pretend benefits are not just another aspect of the overhead of an employee, just like their salary/wages, payroll tax, and free muffins in the break room...

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the employee being in a union or not. In fact, I'm not in a union, but my company pays for all of my health insurance. They may have better group bargaining power to prevent changes to their contracts and compensation, but I have much more individual bargaining power over my salary, as there are dozens of companies I could join and do similar work for similar pay.

Re:2 weeks?

[Jawnn]

Gut health care? Making union employees pay for a portion of their health care like every non union employee does is gutting?

If it's an important benefit, then yes, gutting is the appropriate term for the employer attempting unilaterally to remove it from the package of compensation contained in the contract. Yes, "compensation", if you knew anything about the history of labor relations in this country, you'd know that there was a point where pensions and health care benefits were taken in exchange for wages. It was, more or less, a win for both parties when health expenses were not so insane as they are now. Maybe, just maybe, if you didn't bad-mouth unions so much, you'd have what has become in extremely important benefit too, but no. You seem to think you're getting a better deal than "those stupid union jerks". Right?

Re:2 weeks?

[sjames]

Yes, it is. If you believe otherwise, what's to stop employers from deciding it's OK if you start living like practically every Ethiopian we see in the commercials does?

Re:2 weeks?

[The Dawn Of Time]

Well, aside from the fact that the CBA had expired, you have a perfectly valid point.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Following your miserable logic will see every employee at the lowest common denomenator in no time. Please, gripe about pregnacy leave and week-end pay differentials and 5 day work weeks next. See if they won't strip everything from everyone so you assholes can stop calling unions selfish.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderators who are handing out mod points instead of arguing their case as comments are pathetic.

Re:2 weeks?

[cdrguru]

Problem is, the economy is contracting and a wireline provider is basically something just waiting to die, at least for young people.

What is Verizon supposed to do with needing fewer and fewer employees, having fewer and fewer customers and less and less revenue? With a union shop they can't fire people because they are no longer needed. They can't change their job descriptions. So about all they can do is cut spending per employee.

The problem with unions is that it works fine for a growing company, as long as the company is continuously growing and expanding. Have a bad year or two and you can't adjust the staffing to accomodate the changes. What we are looking at is simply a huge downturn for nearly all businesses worldwide - fewer customers, less revenue. Most companies can simply let people go and contend with the smaller market. Unionized employers can't do that.

I guess the can just shut down and walk away.

Re:2 weeks?

[DesScorp]

If you mean "solved" as in a combination of bust-ass costs, a snotty sense of entitlement, and a black hole in your national budgets, fine you solved it. Stay where it's solved, and we'll keep being backwards, thanks.

Re:2 weeks?

[lexsird]

I wouldn't be jealous either. You have to consider what you are dealing with when talking to Americans. Its a country heading downhill at breakneck speed toward fascism. The 2012 elections here, provided we make it to them without imploding, will tell the tale of our future, which looks grim either way. We are an incredibly polarized country with a propensity towards violence which promises to be volatile in the near future.

Our trade policies, which the rich corporations have fostered through our corrupt politicians, have gutted our entire industry. The jobless are growing, tent cities are springing up outside of our cities and people are homeless. Yet we continue to whistle past the graveyard, ignoring it all. We just had a showdown in our congress where the rich won, badly needed social programs will be cut so that the rich can enjoy the lowest taxes in decades.

Why aren't we rioting in the streets? Chalk it up to weapons grade propaganda, a police state second to none, and an under educated population that worships the rich and corporations like a cargo cult.

If you think you are immune to our evils in Britain, you are dead wrong. From this madness, multinational corporations have grown to power that aren't content to suck the marrow from our bones, they want everyone's, including yours. Corporations have been allowed to grow into monsters here. We were their egg. They are beyond our control now, because they control us.

All in all, it was our ignorance and greed that took us down. If nothing, we are a cautionary tale. So, make a snack, and watch as we sink into oblivion. We are collapsing under our own weight while locked in a vice grip, strangled by those in power. My advice to your country; Burn every Wal-Mart you have to the ground. Hound those who run them down and hang them from light poles down town. Protect your jobs, protect your industry or bow to your Chinese Overlords, they are the real winner when the smoke has cleared.

Re:2 weeks?

[nschubach]

I have a feeling that's the intent... they have been focusing on the wireless aspect of the business and those that are still clinging to wire are going to find the wire cut off. I wouldn't be surprised if Vz sells off the land line.

Re:2 weeks?

[nomadic]

"I wish for all fellow men to get all kinds of benefits as long as they are not getting it from my profit." And that's the kind of greedy attitude that has kept civilization back for so long.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they were able to convince an unsubstantial percentage of employees to work without healthcare does not mean it can be removed from everyone else's contracts without adequate compensation.

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

Funny, the UK spends less than half of the GDP per capita compared to the US, for a similar standard of care (and encompassing the entirety of our population, not just those who can afford it).

The propaganda machine worked very well to convince Americans that socialised health care systems were backward, stone age, expensive disasters when they are really.... not. They are not perfect, and will never claim that they are - the UK NHS does need some serious attention, but it is light years ahead of the US system. It's not even close.

You're also one to talk about "black holes" in the national budget, keeping two wars off the books. The annual cost of the UK's healthcare provision (approximately 50 billion pounds, or 82/83 billion USD) is nothing compared to that, or the huge hole opened by the bush era tax cuts for the wealthy.

The UK spends 8% of its GDP per capita on healthcare and *everyone* is covered. The US spends 16% of its GDP per capita and there are millions of Americans who are not covered, and a huge number who get into crippling debt if they get sick.

The NHS is far from a "black hole" in our budget - it is certainly one of the most expensive things by a long chalk, but it is very cost effective for the care it provides. It suffered 20 years of neglect under a right wing government in the 80s that wanted to kill it but knew they couldn't do it outright, so they tried to starve it to death, and it is still recovering to this day (with bungling of modernisation by both sides of the political spectrum in the wake of the Thatcher years), but it is one of the shining examples of modern Britain to come out of the post war years.

Don't believe everything the right wing media tells you about "death panels" and "doctor rationing" and "financially crippling to the economy" - they are what as known as "lies".

We certainly don;t have the best example in Europe (Sweden and Norway are far better, as is France), but we are head and shoulders above the US. I have extensive experience of both systems, so I am well positioned to be able to directly compare them.

It's a shame, because the standard of care in US hospitals is excellent, there's just a massive impenetrable wall in front of the entrances, or more accurately, the hospitals are behind huge moats with sharks and rocks. You can buy a boat to get across, or you can pay insurance to be able to rent one if you need it. We just built a bridge over the moat here in the UK, and everyone chips in a few pounds per month from their paycheque to keep the bridge in good repair (but you can still go with private insurance and private healthcare if you like). The fact that everyone pays a little means that the costs are much, much, much lower for everyone.

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

Oh? You think sharing other people's money actually improves civilization somehow? Government taking money out of private sector and spending the money on what it prefers is what created all of the economic problems since the income taxes were introduced and the Fed was created in USA, while USA became the largest creditor nation and producer of innovation and cheap high quality goods prior to that moment in time.

Having government redistribute profits is what creates the mis-allocation of resources, takes people's liberties away, makes people dependent on government programs rather than having those very people invest their own savings into businesses of their choosing.

Re:2 weeks?

[shutdown -p now]

What's stopping you from joining a union?

Re:2 weeks?

[ravenshrike]

Of course, there's the fact that your military and France's combined don't even have the ability to control the airspace of the third world country that entirely controls your supply of ultra sweet crude oil for more than 2 months without running out of munitions. That doesn't even consider that you decided to get rid of all your aircraft carriers and depend upon the french for carrier platforms until what, 2016? You think your health care scheme is so grand, fine. How about America withdraws entirely from western Europe and says that Britain, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and Germany are ripe for the plucking for anybody who cares to do so and we will offer exactly ZERO assistance to them. We'll continue guarding Finland, Poland, Georgia, and the Ukraine of course, but will allow the Russians and any other interested parties passage through said territories for a small fee. Moreover, any pharma corp that deals with any of the above countries at prices under what the drugs command in the US gets all their assets seized. Be fun to see the fallout from that particular maneuver.

Re:2 weeks?

[Jhon]

Assuming you are referring to the US, you've a poor understanding of just how many corporations employ how many workers compared to how many non-corporate...

Re:2 weeks?

[Jhon]

Why not, instead wish a sinking boat benefit from the sea floor rising?

Re:2 weeks?

[jellomizer]

Perhaps they are angry because the unions have hindered the company so much, that it makes it difficult to expand and hire new employees.
I have worked with non-union and unionized companies. And I often find that the Unionized companies employees are often more miserable, they are afraid to disagree with the union, the idea of collective bargaining is that you are not smart enough to bargain for yourself, so you are treated as a grunt, and any benefits you get from the union job, is often counter balanced dealing with a situation where you cannot grow. The Union makes its money from having more unionized employees and its uses this money to control politics and not to help the employee.

I am for the idea that Unions were supposed to bring, but it is outdated and needs to be severally fixed.

1. Unions were formed in a situation where they were a small handful of factories to work for in a City, and if you loose your job or unable to do your job you were fired and forced to live the rest of your life in poverty.
2. Single income family was expected. So a loss of a job was devastating.
3. Transportation wasn't wide scale and leaving your town to find work was hard and a major life changing problem.
4. The average education for these jobs was people with elementary school if that and a LOT of people who were illiterate, or couldn't speak english.

So back then Unions did a lot of stuff to clean stuff up and make working a job possible and a lot of the things that are common now are thanks to unions.

However just because they did good back then it doesn't mean they are doing good now. Culture has changed and unions need to be reformed but everyone is afraid to say that. They are either trying to get rid of them completely or keeping the same broken system working.

Unions need the following changes.

1. They need part of a profit sharing with the corporation, combined with dues from the employees. You need to keep the employees happy but also the company running smoothly and allow growth for more employees.

2. They need to figure out how to maintain long term growth of employees. It needs to encourage new employees with no skills and work with them to allow them to advance up and get more skills, and if they want to move to an other company they shouldn't feel stuck to do so.

3. Encourage good performance, A lot of the time in a unionized environment there is 20% of the people doing the work for the other 80% and that 20% isn't getting properly paid for their work.

4. Protection from bullying, While you are supporting the company you need to make sure management isn't bullying the lower ranks unfairly, and complaining WILL NOT put the complainer in a bad political position.

5. Staying competitive. That means some jobs will no longer be needed. The union should try to force people to change their skills or let them get fired. But the Union should strongly get employees to upgrade their skills.

6. Force the company of offer services that will keep the employee productive. Child Care, Employee health, etc...

7. Intelligent Layoffs, sometimes they need to happen, the union need to make sure it is the right people who get layoff and the right people stay, even if it means fire that director and keep a bunch of those low level guys.

8. Job Placement assistance. If they do get canned the union should really find a new job for the employee.

9. Law enforcement, make sure the company is following the existing laws.

10. Job Equality, Race, Religion (or Lack of), Gender, Sexual Preference should be well protected. As well different advancement tracks. Someone should be able to be promoted without having to be a manager,
 

Re:2 weeks?

[nomadic]

Riiiight, and back when you had little regulation and the top 2% controlled so much of the wealth, life was great for everyone right?

Re:2 weeks?

[TooMuchToDo]

You just described the US you fool. Bust-ass costs? Someone is paying for the uninsured no matter what, and its usually the insured through higher premiums. Snotty sense of entitlement? USA! USA! (even though we rank MUCH lower than any first world country in the quality of our healthcare, despite spending many times more). Black whole in national budgets? Well, I'll leave that for you to figure out.

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

Please do. The USA caused more political unrest in the Middle East over the course of its attempts to control access to oil than any other nation. You're the reason we're in this mess, and we have long been working our way out of it, especially on attempting to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Either way, it's irrelevant. We spend less than half the GDP per capita on healthcare that the US does (as do the bulk of countries with socialised healthcare) *despite* your large military spending. In other words, your bravado "America, World Police, Fuck Yeah!" doesn't help your point - we are already spending less per capita on healthcare than you are... so what? We're doing that because we are being "backed up" by the US military, and thus can afford to spend less on our own military? That is a total non-sequitur. It might make a tiny bit of sense if the figures were reversed (i.e., we spend twice as much per capita on healthcare, but we do not).

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

I was being facetious, since the argument was very silly to start with - that somehow union workers 'don't live in the real world' (i.e., the implication that they are coddled, live the life of riley and have cushy salaries and benefits - in other words, all the things the right wing media and the corporations want you to believe)

Re:2 weeks?

[Ihmhi]

As an American, I want to say thank you. Please keep fighting this perception. Every time national health care is brought up it's fought with cries of "SOCIALISM!". Never mind the facts you stated about the UK, or the fact that we already have more than a few "socialized" services (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Police, Fire Department, etc.).

It's goddamned sickening how easily some people fall for this shit.

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

I don't know what you are talking about, but what I do know is that while government was actively absent from the economy in 19 century in USA, the country became the biggest creditor and manufacturer nation, flooding the world with innovations and inventions and cheap good quality products, which did make lives better for everybody.

Re:2 weeks?

[paper tape]

Don't you understand that when you take a job, you negotiate for a "Total Compensation" package.

Yep - and for non-union employees, that is done once, at time of hire. Unions deliberately negotiate short term contracts so that they can periodically re-negotiate to get better pay/benefits, on the theory that the economy is consistently improving. In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.

This time, that strategy backfired. Sucks to be them - but when you gamble regularly, sometimes you lose.

Re:2 weeks?

[sonicmerlin]

So because non-union shmucks are losing out to their corporate masters, you'd rather the union members lose out? What kind of a jealous monster are you?

Re:2 weeks?

[dbcad7]

The union world is just as real as the non union.. Here's the thing you forget.. being part of the union, you are required to have that health insurance.. With the higher numbers of employees insured, it becomes a bargaining chip to negotiate with insurance companies (they are very desired customers)... What you and many other non union workers don't understand, is that this benefit is part of the agreement between employees of a union and the employer.. Medical insurance is a cost of doing business, just like any other cost of doing business.. if your power bill increases, you don't tell your employees that they have to share in that increase.. just as an employee when your food bills or gasoline bills are increased you don't tell the employer that they need to share in your increases.. Your salary comment is also narrow minded.. even in unions there are numerous ways you can be compensated. There a fixed salaries, hourly employees, and numerous performance incentives.. Unions are not anti-employer, they want the company to succeed just as much as the CEO does.. You don't see CEO's reducing their salaries to union wages with the same benefits as their employees, and then saying.. well I guess next year I am going to be taking another $100 out of my pocket.. Because they want the same thing the employees do, to just do their job and get paid and let the cost of doing business be whatever it is, and let the business sell their product at a profit beyond that... This whole idea of using employees and their benefits as a cost cutting measure is part of what's wrong with the economy.. it's part of what caused so many millions to be unemployed.. rather than raise prices to make a profit percentage and keep people working and buying goods.. with some inflation, they laid off workers and created debt for the country.. and screwed themselves out of potential customers, and made the economy a self prophesying disaster.. The whole deal with these companies.. Was that we would reduce their taxes, they would keep people employed, and the employed people would pay taxes making up for the reduced tax.. Instead, they have screwed the employees, taken the tax breaks, and now support the candidates who want to keep this viscous "let them eat cake" cycle going..

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actively absent? Must not have paid attention to all the pesky details like railroad grants, continual expansion of territory, and a few other things.

And that's just the governmental aspects that show government wasn't actively absent. The other reasons for the growth have nothing to do with the government per se, but reflect a generally open expanse into which the population and industry could expand, brought upon by great resources and refinements in technology.

And ok, the latter was boosted through the government's patent and copyright laws, but you could argue it was stifled too, so that may be a wash.

Still, you're wrong in your perceptions. There's a reason why the economy won't grow in the same leaps and bounds, and most of it is because there's nowhere to actually grow into, what with the lack of empty spaces to claim. What's left is either occupied or simply not desirable.

Re:2 weeks?

[ThurstonMoore]

You lay people off when their is not enough work. I know lots of union people who get layed off when work is slow.

Re:2 weeks?

[LibRT]

"...have gutted our entire industry"

The US was, at least until the end of 2010 (haven't checked the figures for a while) the world's largest manufaturer. I'll repeat that, because there's enormous propaganda about "all" the manufacturing having fled the US: the US is the world's largest manufacturer. Granted, China, with 6 times as many people and a labor cost factor a fraction of the US' is catching up quickly - they may have already overtaken the US - but that's why the things you buy at Wal-Mart are cheap. I get that the talking heads and the hysteria they peddle on the TV and elsewhere may be compelling to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean the party line about "no manufacturing left in the US" is correct.

But really, how relevant is manufacturing to the US when there are more people employed by government in the US than there are in manufacturing and construction combined (it's about 1 in 7 people that are employed by the various levels of government)?

As for the "Chinese Overlords", if the US collapses (which I don't disagree it will, altho we may differ on the time frame) they lose the value of the few trillion in US government bonds they hold, plus their major market for all those goods they're manufacturing. As such, I expect them to do their utmost to prop up the US to the bitter end - they're in too deep now to do otherwise.

Re:2 weeks?

[Rockoon]

the idea of collective bargaining is that you are not smart enough to bargain for yourself, so you are treated as a grunt

The idea of collective bargaining is that as a collective you have more leverage than you would otherwise have. This is coming from a conservative, so don't for a second think that I'm some liberal drone coming to the defense of unions.

I believe in liberty, and that means I believe that people have a right to form collectives. Yet I am against some aspects of public sector unions, because I believe that both parties in a negotiation should first have a moral authority to negotiate over the things that they are negotiating over.. that its ok to negotiate over how short term tax revenues are allocated, but not long term tax revenues where its obviously an egregious violation of moral authority (for instance, buying union votes today by promising that future tax payers will pay union members a pension is obviously an egregious violation of moral authority)

I think that the negative feelings about private sector unions are caused specifically by government intrusions into the process. This isnt to say that the government shouldn't be involved and shouldn't be providing protections, but its that the government is overly involved and provides excessive protections. It is so bad that it is nearly impossible for a union shop to go non-union even when a majority of the workers want to dissolve the collective.

Re:2 weeks?

[darth dickinson]

So how *is* Greece these days?

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

Being propped up by Germany and several other EU nations, as are Italy and Ireland.

Greece is what happens when you take things like the Bush Tax Cuts and turn them into a national motto. Their economy is in the tank because they simply do not raise enough tax revenue to cover expenditure. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have socialised healthcare.

Re:2 weeks?

[yourmommycalled]

Seems you aren't in touch with how things really work! There are still only a few companies in an area that you can work for. Think the Detroit area or Seattle. If you are a mechanical or aero engineer in Seattle,just how many other companies can you go towork for? Think the Coco Beach area in Florida: Now that the shuttle program has ended just how many jobs are there going to be for the technical staff associated with Shuttle program. I suggest you look at what happens when you try and sell a house now. Single income familes were able to be middle class 50 years ago, today the bottom of the middle class is ALMOST sustainable for two high-school teachers. Starting high-school teachers (BS 1 to 5 years experience) in my state make $27,000. Try having a home in Syracuse NY and the only job offer you get is in Rochester NY. You going to try and sell your house in Syracuse in this market or are you going to drive 180 miles a day because transportation "wide scale and leaving your town to find work" is "easy" Strangest thing about your "suggestions", with the exception of the profit sharing which no company managed by a MBA's would offer because the MBA's wouldn't their "bonus", the points you list are exactly what unions want, but are increasingly not possible because of corporate intransigence

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

...I have yet to be employed by a company that is out to do their employees harm. In fact most of them seem to bend too far the other way by adopting union like policies akin to tenure that coddle people and kill there drive to excel.

You've obviously never worked for BBVA.

Posting anonymously...duh...

Re:2 weeks?

[Tarsir]

So, following your logic: If an employee has a contract for total compensation of X dollars which includes $1000 per month in health insurance. When the insurance premiums go up 10% the following year, the union employee should then pay the extra $100 because the contract was for a fixed amount?

I'm not the OP, but he's pretty clearly not making an argument about which pats of the total compensation are fixed and which are not; but rather that it doesn't matter whether your compensation is entirely in the form of salary, or partially salary and partially 'benefits'; a cut is a cut, and is grounds for "re-negotiation" using any (legal) means at your disposal.

The article mentioned that the contract had expired, I see NOTHING wrong with a new contract that requires that ALL employees pay a portion of health care costs.

Of course you didn't--it's not your salary that's being cut. If your employer planned on cutting your salary, and you had the leverage to prevent it, would you use it, or just meekly take the cut?

Re:2 weeks?

[lexsird]

Yeah, Detroit is really a bustling industrial town, it's really the "party line" that makes us think other wise. The manufacturing that left my home town, yeah, it's really still there, being ran by invisible people, producing an invisible product; Casper the Friendly Ghost is running it. What was I thinking? Oh yeah, it's the "party line."

When I go shopping, all those "made in China" stamps and tags, they really read "made in the USA", I am just that brainwashed that I can't read. As far as people losing their homes. They really just want to go on extended camping trips. Jobless people? They are just lazy, I get it now. It's all the party line.

Our money is worth about half of what it was in the 90s due to inflation. So if people are counting our manufacturing by the dollar amount, they are high as a kite.

You can't take the low end, low ticket manufacturing jobs out of the economy equation without messing up the ecology of the economy. This is all part of the fallacy of "free trade". Trade is war, and we need "fair trade". When politicians are mere lackeys for multinational corporations, we will never have "fair trade", only loopholes that create wealth at the expense of others and those "others" happen to be the working class of America.

Re:2 weeks?

[Tarsir]

Yep - and for non-union employees, [negotiation] is done once, at time of hire.

Ridiculous. You "re-negotiate" your salary every time you ask for a raise. If your company won't give you a raise, then you should look for work elsewhere. And if you can't find work elsewhere, maybe you should consider forming a union so you have some negotiating power. The shareholders who own your company pooled their resources to increase their leverage, why don't you?

In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.

True, but corporations can do the exact same thing to their employees. They can, and they quite frequently do. Why not protect yourself from that?

Re:2 weeks?

[A. Bosch]

Bzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong, try again. I live in the world where I don't need to extort salary and benefits from an employer by threat of strikes/intimidation/sabotage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics "In 2010, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 11.9 percent". The other 88% of the workforce is the "real" world. I'm not jealous in the least. Health care costs are rising faster than inflation. Big surprise that employers are trying to shift that cost. That said, I wish the Verizon employees well; this isn't a company that's struggling. They're doing quit well. They want to share the wealth with the holders of stock options instead of the workers.

Re:2 weeks?

[BenoitRen]

Who do you think constructed all the roads? The government did so with tax money. Go take your Republican nonsense elsewhere.

Re:2 weeks?

[nomadic]

And what percentage of the population lived in utter squalor? People like you who extoll the virtues of the 19th century wouldn't have lasted a day working in a 19th century factory.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so many illusions.

Here's what has happened with US manufacturing. It's diversified. It's no longer in a few towns, but spread across dozens, or hundreds. It's also mechanized, which means fewer workers for the same amount of work. Here's another thing, the idea that what they're making is for sale in the places you shop.

Chances are...it's not. The manufacturing is in other goods, some of which is counter-productive, like the machinery to run a factory in a third-world country.

But it's still being produced. You are correct that the lopsided free trade isn't fair, but there's a lot more to it.

Re:2 weeks?

[thePuck77]

So rather than realize your employer is screwing you over and resenting them, you resent those who have successfully organized with their fellow workers in order to bargain for better conditions? What an odd way of looking at things. Why wouldn't you prefer for everyone's conditions to be better, including your own?

Re:2 weeks?

[Occams]

News flash. There is no threat to the USA or UK that justifies the spending on a carrier battle group - especially if you are broke. They are only soft targets for submarines anyway. The UK NHS is bad, but still much better than the US system where most of the money goes to insurance companies and lawyers. I am Australian who has lived in and liked both US and UK - neutral.

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

I addressed this long time ago.

Also government has no authority to spend on public works projects, to prop up auto-companies or any other companies with subsidies and to use the public resources as leverage against individual liberties by blackmailing States.

Re:2 weeks?

[yourmommycalled]

Since when is any union "extorting" anything? The company management and union reps sit down and NEGOTIATE what the salary and benefit package should be. Exactly where is the "threat". The "real" world has people like Michelle Rhee who fired teachers and principles who would not falsify standardized test scores. The real" world has UPS embezzling of money illegally taken out of the the backside of drivers weekly payroll checks. The real world has company owners using HR information to take multiple credit cards using their employees good credit, deducting FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal/State/Local taxes but never forwarding those taxes and then using the credit cards and money to "enhance" his life style. Maybe you mean when a company "downsizes" it's engineering/technical staff because there isn't enough work to justify keeping the staff, but then apearing before Congress asking for more H1B visa's because they "cann't" find ANY qualifiied engineering/technical staff in the US. By the way those are only the examples that I have personal knowledge experience with. After 40 years of crap from those "caring and concerned" employers I wish I could belong to a union.

Re:2 weeks?

[Chowderbags]

Since when aren't unions part of the real world? If a group of people want to organize together to increase negotiation leverage, then that is 100% free market in action and going on strike is a perfectly valid tactic. Sure, you might be saying "well, it's not fair that some workplace would require me to join a union", but is that any less fair than there being only a few players in the mobile phone industry, or 4-5 companies owning 90+% of the media in this country? Don't be pissed off that some people collectivize their labor in response to others collectivizing their capital.

Re:2 weeks?

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

Self respect.

Re:2 weeks?

[operagost]

Have ya noticed the economy? Have ya?

Re:2 weeks?

[operagost]

We just had a showdown in our congress where the rich won, badly needed social programs will be cut so that the rich can enjoy the lowest taxes in decades.

Thanks for lying but no, that didn't happen. The last time any "entitlements" were cut was when Obamacare was passed. You see, Obamacare cut Medicare. Also, it took away the OTC drug benefit from HSA accounts and lowered the savings cap-- because after all, the government wants you to spend, not save. That would put the power and responsibility for your health in your own hands, instead of the government's.

Re:2 weeks?

[operagost]

You mean in Europe? So in which country do you live: one of the ones that is being bailed out, or one that is doing the bailing?

Re:2 weeks?

[operagost]

Private interests used to build roads. Look up the Lincoln Highway, for example. The bad side? They charged tolls, so instead, we pay road taxes (on gasoline and diesel, mostly). Except OOPS now the state governments are charging us tolls on top of that anyway.

Re:2 weeks?

[lexsird]

Ah, yeah, it did happen. The Teabag Party held the entire economy hostage so their rich masters could skate. That's what happened, it's history, I was watching it the entire time, you can't convince me what I seen with my own eyes didn't happen. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

Re:2 weeks?

[operagost]

Do you really think teachers are the only ones having trouble finding work near their homes? You might have to move: I don't like it either, but things are hard right now. And your $27,000 starting salary sounds pretty good for slightly more than nine months work, with great benefits that you have to pay little or nothing for. That's like $36,000 a year. You can't find work for the other three months? Teachers have been doing this forever. People don't go into teaching to get rich. Well, frankly, no one should ever go into a career to get rich... getting rich is for people who want to start their own business or invest.

Re:2 weeks?

[operagost]

Redistribution of wealth is not charity.

Re:2 weeks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethics, morals, not being incompetent, and liking the ability to fire any retard who doesn't measure up.

Re:2 weeks?

[c6gunner]

Why aren't we rioting in the streets?

Because most people don't buy in to your nonsense?

Re:2 weeks?

[jo_ham]

One of the ones doing the bailing.

Nice that you are attempting to equate the requirement for a bailout with a socialised healthcare system though, as if that had anything to do with the reason the economies of Italy, Ireland and especially Greece are in serious trouble.

I mean, my car ran out of fuel the other day, and I realised it was because it runs on diesel, not gasoline! Silly me, that's why it ran out! It's so obvious now.

Re:2 weeks?

[bckrispi]

Exactly! It's simply amazing the volume of high-margin products that can be manufactured when you have a factory filled with hundreds of twelve-year-olds working 18 hours a day for pennies a week. Let's hear it for 19th century labor laws!

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

Actively absent? Must not have paid attention to all the pesky details like railroad grants, continual expansion of territory, and a few other things.

- government was involved in some things that it shouldn't have been, it's true. But most of the market did not see government involvement at all.

brought upon by great resources and refinements in technology.

- and these things are 'brought' by somebody investing their savings (deferred consumption based on production) into developing those great resources and that technology. Private business did all of the necessary work on infrastructure and technologies and USA became the largest creditor nation exporting cheap hight quality consumer goods to all over the world, much like China does today.

was boosted through the government's patent and copyright laws

- I always argue against patents and copyrights as they are also government interference with the market. Trade secrets and trade marks are a private matter, all of this patent and copyright business, it's more government nonsense.

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2328384&cid=36786788

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1803854&cid=33744920

most of it is because there's nowhere to actually grow into

- yeah, says you and Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899. (Everything that can be invented has been invented).

What's left is either occupied or simply not desirable.

- and obviously you and the government are the authority to say what's desirable or not.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Got any citation that they don't already?

And good on these employees. More workers need to fight against this bullshit that is gutting health benefits.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Who the fuck cares? Why the fuck should your value as a person be tied to the economy?

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Probably because they were actually willing to fight to be treated like people.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Yes, that's true. But if you look at the figures again, you'll realize that's largely AUTOMATED manufacturing. As in, using a fraction of the people that it would have used before. So you're still missing the point.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Ahh, so you live in the world where workers have no power at all, and should be licking the balls of the employers for the table scraps, and be liking it, God Dammit! Heaven forbid they try to increase their bargaining power by banding together.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

I can truthfully say I have yet to be employed by a company that is out to do their employees harm.

Lucky you. I would, however, bet that you have yet to work for a company that actually cares about it's employees.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Yep - and for non-union employees, that is done once, at time of hire.

So you never try to get a raise, a promotion, or anything above what you're currently doing? Sounds like an incredibly shitty career.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.

And in times of high unemployment, the company can hold the employees hostage for unreasonable pay cuts and get them too.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

I absolutely am not interested in any government dictating that some fellow man get more than they are producing not based on market forces but based on government putting a gun to an employer's head. I am absolutely not interested to have my profits taken away and shared among those, who didn't work for them by the force of government.

This is bullshit speak for, "Employers should be able to completely dictate all terms of employment, and unless you're a rich, valuable person already, you don't deserve benefits or decent wages."

AFAIC there must be no public unions of any kind, it needs to be illegal to have public unions

Because you should have different rights based on who your employer is.

As to private unions - they are fine, as long as there are no labor laws passed by government that change the power dynamic between the private business and private labor.

So as long as the employers get to keep all of the power in the relationship, and unions have none, then they are fine. Because we wouldn't want unions to, you know, actually improve the conditions for the workers. That'd cut into profits.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

And I can tell you right now, that during those times, workers were treated like slaves, and not given any rights. They had extremely dangerous workplaces, they didn't get any benefits whatsoever, and often weren't even paid in real money.

However, despite what you'd like to believe, today we still have one of the top spots in global manufacturing.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Also government has no authority to spend on public works projects

Yeah, you'd be wrong there.

And quite frankly, take your naive "government is awful" bullshit somewhere else. We don't want it in this country. Go to Somalia, and see what happens when the government can't actually do anything. See how awesome it is when all functions of government are left to the private sector.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

the idea of collective bargaining is that you are not smart enough to bargain for yourself, so you are treated as a grunt

No, the idea of collective bargaining is that, as an individual, you don't have enough power to bargain, because the company can just tell you to fuck right off.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and then go on to disparage anyone who wants to make any kind of comfortable living for themselves.

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

that's a worthless comment.

Free market capitalist society increases the wealth of everybody, as it did by producing all of the goods that people want and making those goods better and cheaper and more accessible with every new competitor and iteration.

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

and you are wrong and I gave an extremely excellent explanation here in this very story why you are wrong.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

Actually, you very much didn't. Your example is from the 20th Century, not the 19th. After unions had started getting momentum. And you might claim "market pressure", but that's just code speak for "I don't want to admit that pressure from unions did this, and without him doing it, unions would have come in."

But, of course, you can keep thinking that your anecdotal evidence actually counts for something. Forget EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY of employers treating their employees like crap. One person didn't, so we should be able to trust in the market to do it, right?

Re:2 weeks?

[roman_mir]

. And you might claim "market pressure", but that's just code speak

- of-course it's market pressure. Which part of this statement you can't understand:

These innovations were hard on employees, and turnover of workers was very high, while increased productivity actually reduced labor demand. Turnover meant delays and extra costs of training, and use of slow workers.

- people were coming and going, he could not retain talent.

That IS market pressure and it absolutely had NOTHING to do with any unions. He was driving his people hard and needed them to work hard and to stay in the company. He extremely anti-union and wouldn't have allowed one in the factory, but the market pressure of people LEAVING the company made him figure it out and do this:

Ford solved the employee turnover problem by doubling pay to $5 a day, cutting shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day for a 5 day work week (which also increased sales; a line worker could buy a T with less than four months' pay), and instituting hiring practices that identified the best workers, including disabled people considered unemployable by other firms

- this is ABOVE ANY UNION SHOP SALARY at the time. He was heavily criticized by a number of other employers and Wall street guys for this move.

However he achieved the goal:

Employee turnover plunged, productivity soared, and with it, the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name.

That's how it's done in business and without government regulations and income taxes. This is search for more profit that makes a man come up with solutions and even invent new business practices (the franchised dealers). That's not how governments or unions do anything, that's how a guy who wants to make money does stuff.

But, of course, you can keep thinking that your anecdotal evidence actually counts for something.

- This is historical data, not anecdotal. This is the recorded history, are you questioning the facts?

Yes, history actually counts for everything.

Forget EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY of employers treating their employees like crap.

- so they weren't bending over backwards with their employees? That means the employees weren't really used properly, so then competition, like Ford, appeared. But what are you talking about anyway, you are saying I am providing "anecdotes" and you, yourself, aren't even giving a single example. It's all empty hand waving.

Re:2 weeks?

[LibRT]

As long as you, personally (and others who share your view), are unwilling to pay substantially more for the same (and possibly inferior, ie cars) product, for the purposes of subsidizing workers, simply because it is "Made in the USA", you're contributing to the system you are railing against. If approached by two people, one of whom (Bob) offers to sell you an item for $1 and another (Jim) offers the same item for $5, most people will buy the $1 item. The fact that when you scale the example up considerably to the point that Bob and Jim become China and USA doesn't much alter that: if someone can make something more efficiently, and therefore sell it at a cheaper price, that someone (or country) tends to win.

While I can understand the pain that leads to viewpoints like yours (who likes to see their hometown undergo serious changes for the worse?), the fundamental problem is that the US has become massively inefficient in many ways, most notably in labor costs. And while the solution involves a whole lot more pain still to come (in the form of continued reduction in pay and benefits in very many parts of the US economy), it's not a viable alternative to continue to subsidize labor costs via protectionism and other things which will cause even more pain in the long run, as the labor force continues to get more inefficient relative to other countries - that's just whistling past the graveyard on the way to your job at the horse and buggy factory.

I don't look at "trade" as "war"; I look at it as there simply being another guy trying to feed his family just like I am, and he is willing to work harder and for less money and benefits to feed them. The fact his name is Ping and he lives in China really isn't relevant - he might as well be Bob or Jim. The attitude of entitlement that says, "I am an American, therefore I deserve a certain standard of living" is what's going to kill the US unless it's replaced with, "Fuck it, I'll work harder and for less if that's what it takes to win!" That's what generations did that made the US. Hell, people risk their lives to get into the US and work their asses off just so they can send a few bucks home to feed their family, and they're doing the kind of jobs at the kind of pay virtually all Americans snicker at while they do important things - you know, listen to the latest Britney tunes and find out what Paris Hilton is up to and then go shopping for some $200 jeans and a new pair of Nikes (that some other guy worked his ass of for $2 a day to put together for you).

Every day, whether you like it or not, you're up against hundreds of millions of people willing to work harder, longer and for less than you, and their willingness to do so has been chipping away at the notion of Amercian divine right to a particular standard of living for a long time now. Forget the real estate bubble or the tech bubble or the currency bubble or any of the other bubbles - the biggest bubble of all is the US labor bubble. I don't relish that - it sucks for people who grew up believing labor prices always, and only, go up (you know, like house prices). But railing against "corporations" or "government" (insofar as you lament their unwillingness to add restrictions to the restrictions that go you in this hole) is to ignore the root of the problem.

Re:2 weeks?

[LibRT]

Citation neeed.

However, if you're arguing that automation and efficiencies are bad things, I'll respectfully disagree. Do you drive a bespoke, hand-made car? Are you willing and able to pay $2,000,000 for same?

Note tho that I don't disagree with a lot of the post - there's a compelling argument that can be made that the concept of corporations, whereby owners (ie shareholders) get to abdicate legal responsiblity to a legal fiction called a "corporation" for the purposes of massively increasing the pool of available capital may be incredibly sub-optimal, and the "police state" comment is spot-on.

On a completely unrelated note, I'd like to design a web site and I'm looking for advice on a particular feature - what I'd like to include is a charming feature whereby visitors click on a comment box and are randomly transported somewhere else on the page. Somewhere far, far away from the comment box, such that the visitor can't even determine if the comment box is above or below them. And I want this to happen almost all the time. You know, just like slashdot. Any ideas?

Re:2 weeks?

[lexsird]

Once upon a time, when our founding father set up this country, they determined that the only way the Federal Government could raise money was through tariffs. I believe they had the wisdom to protect the environment and ecology of America's economy. Enter a world war and the need to raise more revenue, hence along came income tax. It was suppose to be a temporary measure, and the fact of the mater is, its never been fully ratified as a constitutional amendment. Hence the "voluntary" tag on it, but that is voluntary at the end of a gun.

Every nation on this planet knows to protect its own economy, only through manipulation from corporations of governments have we seen nations protectionism drop. Some of this is for the better, but frankly not for us. We have been running a trade deficit for decades now.

What has happened is big business and corporations have learned over the decades they can move manufacturing off shores to to cut labor costs. Yes, Unions have been a problem, but instead of addressing this problem head on, they did an end run around the situation by just moving offshore. Our politicians have let them get away with this and it's been a slippery slope.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. There will be no jobs for people in America, because the system in its current status isn't going to allow it. They will always be undercut by cheaper labor. Until we slam the door shut on this cheap labor loop hole, the entire country is going to keep sliding down the slippery slope.

First thing, people like yourself need to establish a sense of loyalty to your own neighborhoods, your own state and your own Country. Globalization is a hat trick of the corporations to con the public into letting them cut their throats with these labor loop holes. This propaganda ties in with "capitalism is our religion" and not only have we been pumping this lie to our own people but we have been pumping it out to the rest of the world. This is all fine and dandy until the system at last collapses from being sucked dry.

You can't expect to sell to people when they don't have jobs, but we have. We have run up debt to keep sustaining this lifestyle. Not because we have some delusions of grandeur of our own self worth, but because we have been robbed of what should be ours by liars and thieves. We have been conned into thinking that we shouldn't look after own interests first, that the "Free Market" is a good thing, and those cheap deals aren't cheap at all, they are costing us our country.

We have been suckered into some unrealistic La La Land dream of Political correctness. We have collectively been brainwashed with "white man's guilt" at the plight of poor Ping or Juan. This is a dog eat dog world, over populated, violent, greedy and if you don't watch out for your own with a vengeance, the Pings and Juans will take the food from your table and you and your children will starve due to your stupidity. Big business and corporations have capitalized on this ignorance and have moved the jobs that feed OUR people away, or let them be usurped by those who will work under the table for scraps. They have gotten rich from this situation, not caring about the damage its done to our people, our communities, and now the entire country. They have taken their ill gotten gains and paid these vermin in Washington to watch their backs, give them tax loopholes, allow them to move the jobs away with impunity, or to let our southern border be overran with a silent invasion of cheap labor.

While you set here and pontificate to me the propaganda dogma of these villains, your jobs, your culture, your heritage that all of your forefathers worked so hard for you to have is slipping away into the hands of vermin. Yes, vermin. When you and your children are laying in a ditch or in some tent city, it will be far too late to snap out of this la la land daydream you have been lulled into. The cold realities of this world will have raped your country raw.

You need to wake the hell up and get angry. You need to fig

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

I'm not arguing for or against automation being good or bad. However, in this instance, saying that the US is the world's #1 or #2 manufacturer (depending on the day, how hung over the boss is, etc), doesn't mean a lot because the jobs aren't there. We're making more stuff, but employing fewer people, meaning that there are even less jobs for those out of work to compete for.

On that unrelated note, that feature sounds awesome and is exactly what my business is looking for, also. Perhaps the /. editors would be willing to send us teh codez.

Re:2 weeks?

[LibRT]

You're quite right, of course: manufacturing employment peaked around 1979, tanked from '80 - '83, then held more or less steady until 2000, when it started a substantial decline which didn't let up until 2010 (see here for that citation I asked you for but which I should have just dug up myself: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet). At the same time, however, manufacturing output per worker increased by over 200% between 1970 to 2010, so it's no surprise that when one worker is able to produce the same number of widgets that used to require three people to make, two of those three people may not be long for their jobs. To those two people, I'm sure efficiency does seem to be the enemy.

Then again, it's transitional: the US economy is clearly changing, and the quicker people adapt/retrain/etc, the better off they'll be in the long run (as opposed to implementing protectionist policies such that those workers in a doomed sector delay their adaptation until it's too late). Much, much easier said than done, no doubt about that. But the sooner peopole wrap their mind around the notion that the subsidized wage levels that permitted dramatic wage growth are unsustainable and over for good, and that constantly rising wages are an anomoly, the better off the whole country will be. It's a horribly rude awakening, to be sure, but necessary.

At the end of the day, labor prices are like water: they find their own level. Various policies like immigration restrictions, price fixing (ie minimum wage; unions), trade restrictions, etc. may have tilted the bucket so most of the water flowed to US workers for a while (at the expense, notably, of workers elsewhere), but there is some equilibrium price for labor globally, and that price is substantially lower than Americans have grown accustomed to while simultaneously significantly higher than an order of magnitude of people elsewhere have been toiling under. Philosophically, I'm all in favor of that, because a hell of a lot more people around the world will be able to feed their families, and the trade off is a relatively fewer number of Americans will have to wait a few years before buying that new 3D TV or getting the third car. But it sure sucks if you're one of those American workers.

In all cases, your point was correct and mine was ill-considered - thanks for setting me straight.

Re:2 weeks?

[shoehornjob]

LOL I work for Comcast. We don't have a union. We get a pretty fair deal though so untill someone starts acting like a tyrant I think that we don't need a union here.

Re:2 weeks?

[s73v3r]

So you're going to cling to your one example, again while ignoring every other example from history which caused employees to unionize. Remember, data is not the plural of anecdote.

Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[intellitech]

45,000 employees going on strike.. for two weeks..

I don't feel like doing any math right now, but Verizon lost a bunch of money here, so it's not exactly surprising that this didn't stretch out any longer.

Personally, I was expecting it to be over much sooner, but Verizon was stubborn.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most companies make money when there's a strike. Over $100M in unpaid salary in this case for the two weeks, while exempt management employees work overtime for no additional pay (been there, done that).

That's why strikes rarely make sense anymore.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[intellitech]

Really? If that's the case, well, wow.. that's nuts.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[jhoegl]

Nah, whats nuts is you thinking Verizon lost money during a strike.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Anonymous Coward]

but Verizon lost a bunch of money here

Huh? How? They didn't have to pay 45,000 employees for two weeks. Assuming an average salary (conservatively) of $1,000.00 per week that's $45,000,000.00 they DIDN'T have to pay. That's why the employees are back. They couldn't put enough hurt on Verizon because not a large enough percentage of the employees are union. So, Verizon had the upper hand.

Labor 0 - Big Business 1

 

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The employees from IT and other organizations that covered for the striking workers did get time and a half overtime for the 72 hour weeks they've been pulling.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[panda cakes]

If Verizon has been losing money by employing these 45K union "workers" then the Labor has won just because they have not been all fired and kept the jobs where they add negative value ( i.e. steal) to the Big Business' bottom line.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[shoehornjob]

Yeah but they'll pay overtime to fix all of the stuff the employees sabotaged. Obviously these guys don't think much about their customers if they are willing to destroy Verizon equipment as a way to get back at the company.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, Verizon needs to hire Pinkertons to shoot any striking employee going around cutting cables to hospitals and police stations. Jackass.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[thesh0ck]

The real question is.... if you make enough money to not get paid for 2 weeks and be fine with that. Do you really need more money? I would lose everything if I lost 2 weeks salary.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[thesh0ck]

How do 45000 people all have enough money to just take two weeks without pay? I would be devestated without a paycheck for two weeks.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[shoehornjob]

So in essence you are saying that Verizon needs to hire guards to protect it's equipment in the field because these jackass louts can't control themselves. I realize that most of the union rank and file are decent folks but it's the few assholes that mess it up for everyone. Verizon is already going to pay the workers to repair or replace the damaged equipment so why should they pay twice?

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[HornWumpus]

Not everybody is a wage slave.

Hint if you NEED your next paycheck you are a wage slave. You don't have the ability to say no. Figure out the difference between needs and wants.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[jdpars]

That was a really harsh response. You could have said, "I try to live with three months of expenses saved away." Instead, you said "I'm better than you because I don't live paycheck to paycheck."

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[hjf]

That's why in my country we have a constitutional right to go on strike WITH PAY.

Unless a judge rules the strike is illegal, the company still has to pay you. Otherwise, we get situations like you describe.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[jdpars]

A constitutional right? I know many states give workers the rights to do that, but where does the Constitution fit into this?

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Shoe Puppet]

His country probably doesn't share the constitution of the USA :)

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Shoe Puppet]

Never been involved in a union, but as far as I know unions save part of the dues so they can pay part of their striking member's salary.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[HornWumpus]

Sorry you got butt hurt. I gave you good advice. You ignore it because it isn't phrased 'care bear' enough for you. Toughen up kid.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[flimflammer]

That's one of the downsides to unions that require you to participate in strikes when they happen. If you are out of money, you have to find other ways to make the money.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[HornWumpus]

Please tell us what country so we know never to invest in any business from there.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by your homepage, that country is Argentina.

Argentina, one of the most corrupt, bankrupted, fucked up countries in the world. 'Nuff said.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[iamhassi]

Maybe they shouldn't be pissing off all of their employees all at once? If you did something to make all of your employees very mad all at once what do you expect to happen, everyone to go home and cry themselves to sleep?

Verizon is at least 50% to blame for the destruction of their equipment.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[ganjadude]

when you think about it though, why in the hell should you get paid for not working, and tarnishing the companies reputation?

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[ganjadude]

thats the problem with unions, for all we know verizon didnt piss off all those employees at once, a few of my friends who were striking said they didnt have any clue why they were striking and would like to just return to work. More than likely its a dispute with union leaders, but something that 98% of the employees dont care about, and due to that verizon customers suffer.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[ThurstonMoore]

They probably have a strike fund.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I feel ya, dude. Stupid people and their stupid feelings.

Hey, did you get your renewal notice for ITG Quarterly yet?

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[BenoitRen]

For the same reason that some countries require some paid vacations/sick leave. We still need money to live. A long strike means less pay at the end of the month, which would negatively impact the workers. Don't forget that a strike is usually (at least, over here in Europe) the result of diplomacy failing because the company won't be reasonable.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[atriusofbricia]

Maybe they shouldn't be pissing off all of their employees all at once? If you did something to make all of your employees very mad all at once what do you expect to happen, everyone to go home and cry themselves to sleep?

Verizon is at least 50% to blame for the destruction of their equipment.

Verizon is responsible for the actions of a bunch of union thugs? Do you blame rape victims and robbery victims for being in the wrong place too?

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[eugene ts wong]

That last bit that he said was a bit harsh, but his explanation of the situation was just fine. I don't think that he was intending to belittle somebody for needing a cheque. Some people people literally do live hand to mouth, and I don't automatically judge them for that, so I assumed that he didn't automatically judge. He seemed to be belittling people who automatically assumed that others needed money right away.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[risom]

That's what a union is for. You collect money into a pool on a regular basis, which then pays those who are on strike.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[risom]

So, Verizon makes profit during a strike. That perfectly explains why they have all those employees in the first place. After all, they are all just money sinks.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[iamhassi]

Maybe they shouldn't be pissing off all of their employees all at once? If you did something to make all of your employees very mad all at once what do you expect to happen, everyone to go home and cry themselves to sleep?

Verizon is at least 50% to blame for the destruction of their equipment.

Verizon is responsible for the actions of a bunch of union thugs? Do you blame rape victims and robbery victims for being in the wrong place too?

Are you equating Verizon to a rape victim? That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[operagost]

1. Union goes on strike.
2. Union uses dues to pay off judge and get a favorable judgement so they can continue to collect pay for not working.
3. PROFIT

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[operagost]

In the USA, part of the union dues are supposed to be set aside so that the workers can still be paid (by the union) while on strike. Our union bosses are already fat cats even with this arrangement; I can't imagine the corpulence of the bosses over in Europe if they can keep all the dues for themselves at the expense of free enterprise.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[s73v3r]

Yeah! How dare a country actually treat workers like people!

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[s73v3r]

The alternative is not being able to use the one tool you have to bring attention to shitty working conditions in a company, and pressuring them to change.

Re:Eh, I bet Big Red begs to differ..

[atriusofbricia]

Maybe they shouldn't be pissing off all of their employees all at once? If you did something to make all of your employees very mad all at once what do you expect to happen, everyone to go home and cry themselves to sleep?

Verizon is at least 50% to blame for the destruction of their equipment.

Verizon is responsible for the actions of a bunch of union thugs? Do you blame rape victims and robbery victims for being in the wrong place too?

Are you equating Verizon to a rape victim? That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

No, I'm saying blaming the victim seems silly regardless of who the victim is. A victim is not responsible for the actions of the the person or group who victimized them.

And by "an anonymous reader" you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mike Lennon from Security week?

Who...

[gaelfx]

... is ben, why isn't his name capitalized and why do the CWA and IBEW have him on strike?

Re:Who...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ben was the only guy who knew what the hell he was talking about and thus it was decided it would would be far more efficient if only he went on strike.

Re:Who...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is ben, why isn't his name capitalized and why do the CWA and IBEW have him on strike?

I can't tell if you're trying (poorly) to be funny or if you are just this stupid. Try re-reading the story. The word "ben" is nowhere in the story.

An offer you can't refuse.

[WorBlux]

Unions committing criminal acts to "bargain". No wonder a lot of people don't like them.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its always one redneck who ruins it for the rest of them.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[bhartman34]

Agreed. Workers should be treated fairly, but if they don't act legally, screw 'em -- they should've been arrested and fired.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[bhartman34]

To me, this says it all:

In an interview with a local newspaper, Short said, “Sitting in front of her [a co-worker’s vehicle] lets her know that we do not approve of her crossing the picket line when she should be standing out there suffering as much as we are.”

Source So basically, because of her self-inflicted suffering, anyone who doesn't join her has to suffer. Nice.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[WorBlux]

That's not even the worse of it. Unions leaders themselves are immune for any criminal acts or violence that may be committed upon their encouragement or command.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

but if they don't act legally, screw 'em

Imagine the kind of society we would live in if none of our ancestors had ever acted illegally. I'm not defending the Verizon worker per se, just pointing out that just because someone does something illegal, doesn't mean screw 'em.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[BenoitRen]

In Europe, these union acts aren't illegal at all. After all, how do you expect the right to strike to matter if the company can just hire replacement workers? Unions simply don't have enough power in the USA.

Not sure why people dislike them. Maybe it's another anti-socialist thing.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[garyebickford]

really? Any references?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[houghi]

In Europe you can also choose which union you want to go to. Even if you are not joining a union, you still have the same rights,

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because fighting against a repressive government and starting our own country is the EXACT SAME THING as cutting fiber lines and knocking out phone service to a police station.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[theGhostPony]

Corporations committing criminal acts in order to make a profit. No wonder sensible folks don't like them.

And your point was...?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Nidi62]

Not sure why people dislike them. Maybe it's another anti-socialist thing.

Because they harass people at their homes, bother their children, trespass on people's property, block people into their homes, and try to force their way into people's homes. Then, after they change the rules regarding a union vote, they claim interference when they still lose(it was perfectly fine for them to stand right outside the employee parking lot handing out fliers, but apparently it's vote tampering for the company to actually advertise to the employees the date of the votes. How can you claim to represent the employees when you don't want them to participate?). I have all of this information from first-hand accounts of some of my coworkers(and myself) when the company I work for was recently under a union vote. These were not isolated incidents, these were systematic tactics being employed by the unions. This is why Americans dislike unions. They harass you and intimidate you to force you into something you don't want and, in the US, if a union vote passes, you have exactly 2 choices: join the union and pay them for the privilege of working, or quit. And remember, once a union is voted in, it is virtually impossible for it to be removed or decertified.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[SomeKDEUser]

Fighting unjust and repressive management is the exact same thing as fighting repressive government.

Also cutting fibre lines and knocking phone service to a police station is exactly what you would do in the later case. Ask yourself: why is it that 45000 people all decided that they were angry enough to have that happen? And why are they the guilty party and not the management who let the situation come to that?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Vidar Leathershod]

Maybe it's because someone doesn't have the right to demand that a company not hire a replacement when they don't show up for work? Maybe, if you are easily replaceable, collective bargaining is your only method of getting the wage or benefits you want. But you do not magically gain the right of stopping someone else from working. You don't get the right to blockade the property of another.

Right after this strike, a customer lost their phone line. No dial tone. Just a tad suspicious. Especially when they called the repair line, and they were told "Don't you know we're on strike? Unless there is a 911 emergency, too bad."

After two weeks, this business customer called me about setting up their new internet connection not reliant on the phone line. They already had the equipment. Not as good of a system for them, but I set it up. After some other issues cropped up with not having a tradition POTS line to work with, I contacted Verizon Repair. I was repeatedly disconnected. Finally, I called a residential sales line, and got a real live person. I explained the 2 week outage and the horrible customer service my customer received (Remember, it's the customer's existence that gives that idiot a job). She seemed genuinely sorry that the customer had this extended outage, and explained that while she was in residential service, she was trying to get a hold of someone down the hall in business services. While we waited, and talked, I told her that I had never had someone at a call center offer that kind of service. She expressed disappointment that the people who were making such a fuss were giving the rest of the employees who were still on the job a bad name.

I was shocked by her openness, and based on some other comments, her obvious intelligence and education. I told her that she should not be working in a call center, she should be an entrepreneur with a more direct relationship with customers. In this way, she would be more directly and greatly rewarded for her excellent customer service and focus.

She then told me that in fact, she was filling in. Her normal position with the company was in fact in a more executive capacity (I won't mention what, but it wasn't in the call center arena at all, and was instead in more mid-level non-tech functions).

It all made sense. She is likely a well-compensated, happy employee with some ambition. She strives to improve herself and her worth to her employer, and got rewarded for it. Indeed, she is likely perfectly able to be that kind of entrepreneur who goes on to make peoples' lives better by providing customers with things they want or need, and people with more jobs.

It is the foundation of the most powerful economy in the world. Instead of trying to get someone to pay you more than your position is worth, you make yourself worth paying more by increasing your value.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[mikelieman]

There's quite a bit of editorializing in the OP...

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[NoSleepDemon]

I don't know the details of the case of The Workers vs Verizon, but sometimes the instigators are in fact a vocal minority who manage to gain traction by convincing others that they're being shat on. So the 45,000 workers may not have ALL been angry enough to strike, but mob mentality could have taken care of that.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[GuldKalle]

So terror organizations should really just register as a union?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[kannibal_klown]

And yet, from what I've read no criminal charges or arrests were made. Sounds to me like Verizon is just trying to get the public on their side.

Then again, perhaps there's a new story that says otherwise. But from what I've read, the newspapers and such have only quote Verizon... and not added "police are currently investigating in city-X"

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because they harass people at their homes, bother their children, trespass on people's property, block people into their homes, and try to force their way into people's homes. Then, after they change the rules regarding a union vote, they claim interference when they still lose(it was perfectly fine for them to stand right outside the employee parking lot handing out fliers, but apparently it's vote tampering for the company to actually advertise to the employees the date of the votes. How can you claim to represent the employees when you don't want them to participate?). I have all of this information from first-hand accounts of some of my coworkers(and myself) when the company I work for was recently under a union vote. These were not isolated incidents, these were systematic tactics being employed by the unions. This is why Americans dislike unions. They harass you and intimidate you to force you into something you don't want and, in the US, if a union vote passes, you have exactly 2 choices: join the union and pay them for the privilege of working, or quit. And remember, once a union is voted in, it is virtually impossible for it to be removed or decertified."

[citation needed]

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because they harass people at their homes, bother their children, trespass on people's property, block people into their homes, and try to force their way into people's homes. Then, after they change the rules regarding a union vote, they claim interference when they still lose(it was perfectly fine for them to stand right outside the employee parking lot handing out fliers, but apparently it's vote tampering for the company to actually advertise to the employees the date of the votes. How can you claim to represent the employees when you don't want them to participate?). I have all of this information from first-hand accounts of some of my coworkers(and myself) when the company I work for was recently under a union vote. These were not isolated incidents, these were systematic tactics being employed by the unions. This is why Americans dislike unions. They harass you and intimidate you to force you into something you don't want and, in the US, if a union vote passes, you have exactly 2 choices: join the union and pay them for the privilege of working, or quit. And remember, once a union is voted in, it is virtually impossible for it to be removed or decertified."

What's that old Libertarian argument... "Why don't you simply find a job somewhere else?"

Your post carries a massive [citation needed], because I for one have a gazillion first hand accounts of people who have benefited from union involvement. Besides, If you don't like a unionised workplace, go elsewhere. There's plenty of choices.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what have unions ever done for those of us who are NOT union members? *FUCK THEM*, if we suffer with crappy pay and benefits, then **they** should suffer too.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[PrimaryConsult]

Not entirely. For example, after the 2005 NYC Transit Strike, the union president got 10 days in jail, the union itself was fined $2.5 million and automatic deduction of dues was suspended...
Of course the criminal act committed was striking in the first place, might be different than cable cutting, etc.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to explain why I can't find any reliable evidence of this happening on a regular basis (that isn't a rabid right wing blog)?

Could it possibly be because you are talking out of your ass?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be from a bizarro universe.

In my universe, the corporations do their best to prevent the unions from forming, including firing people, or letting them know that if they vote for a union, well, they just might lose their job, or their hours, and yeah, I'm sure they'd try to force their way into people's homes too.

Let's not even discuss the real issue of voting, which is to DISCOURAGE voters, because non-votes are counted as negative votes, which is kinda unfair for a lot of reasons.

But your universe is different from mine.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[iamhassi]

Unions committing criminal acts to "bargain". No wonder a lot of people don't like them.

Um, no. There were 45,000 people on strike and only 110 acts of sabotage. I only received a minor in math so I'm no expert but unless it took about 400 people per act of sabotage I'm pretty sure most of the people on strike were not committing acts of sabotage.

If I had to make a crazy, random guess I'd say it's about a hundred people, one person per cut line, and maybe even less since one person might have done several acts of sabotage. Going by that it means less than 1% were committing criminal acts.

Can't really blame it on the Union when less than 1% union members were committing criminal acts.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I could not have said it better myself.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Dahamma]

Can you provide *any* citation or proof for this?

Here's what I found:

"Pickets have no immunity from prosecution for committing criminal offences and they have no right to compel others to stop or to listen to the pickets' views. However, employees and their trade union representatives picketing their own place of work are immune from civil legal action for inducing others to break commercial or employment contracts with the employer involved in the dispute."

The immunity is to *civil* action for inducing someone else to break a contract. There is no immunity for inducement/conspiracy to commit a criminal act.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Dahamma]

It's not illegal for a striking employee to sabotage their employer's facilities and steal their computer equipment? Yeah, right.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[StewBaby2005]

Harass people at their homes? Try to force their way into people's homes? Really? Any evidence for those statements? Certainly Unions are not perfect, but they are better than the alternative - Matewan...

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[The Dawn Of Time]

Ahhh, a true believer in the myth of the noble poor. Always a cute mindset.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Libertarian001]

My wife's grandfather had his back broken by union thugs because he was teaching his fellows how to read and write English, which was screwing up the union votes.

My grandfather was beaten up by union thugs because he would not hire any laborers, let alone union, to help him build, paint, run electrical wiring, etc., in his general store and tailor shop. (this would be a building with a single room apartment that my father lived in and worked out of until he was 15, where he and my grandparents were the only employees)

I like the idea of unions. I do not like their implementation.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[SomeKDEUser]

Are you of the "the poor are raccoons" church?

No, they are just human. It is not so easy to anger such a large number of people at once... Fairness is not a moral obligation: rather it is a strongly enforced social behaviour which you go against at your own risk. Be an asshole, suffer the consequences.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[bhartman34]

I'm not saying that it's never justified to break the law. I'm saying that if you do break the law/engage in civil disobedience, it's not on anyone else to save you from your actions. That's especially true if your actions can't be justified.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[bhartman34]

Fighting unjust and repressive management is the exact same thing as fighting repressive government.

Um, no. If you've got unjust and repressive management (leaving aside the question of what "repressive" means in an employment context), you can quit. You can find some other job. That next job may not pay the same as the one you've got, and you may spend some time unemployed, buy y'know what? Those are the breaks. Most people don't work at jobs where it's completely okay for them to refuse to work until their boss raises their pay, and yet, they muddle through somehow. Sometimes illegal action against the government is justified because a government can oppress you in a way that's not a mockery of the word. And oh, yeah: The government controls the military, which tends to raise the stakes a little.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the other side of the story, jackass?

Verizon is an insanely profitable business, they've "only" doubled profit this year, and what is their response to this? Fewer health benefits, no retirement plans, no Veteran's Day off for the grunts in the trenches that make these obscene profits possible. That's just greed.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[nomadic]

If you're going to fabricate facts, try to make them at least a little bit believable.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have anything against the concept of the labor union, but I do have a severe philosophical problem with the concept of the closed shop. I believe that workers should be free to unite, form groups, collectively bargains, strike, etc. However, if I do not like the union or believe the benefits of the union outweigh the costs associated with joining, I should be free to work. If unions provide a benefit, then people will join. If there is an abusive employer then more people will join, if you have a fair employer then there will be less incentive to join.

Why should a third party (Union) be able to interfere in a contract between two willing participants (me and my employer)?

I find the entire concept of being forced to join a union as a condition of employment offensive.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighting unjust and repressive management is the exact same thing as fighting repressive government.

Um, no....

Also cutting fibre lines and knocking phone service to a police station is exactly what you would do in the later case.

Not at all.

Ask yourself: why is it that 45000 people all decided that they were angry enough to have that happen?

Because they are greedy, self-centered bastards that don't care what happens to other people, as long as they get what they want. 'Someone died because the police phones didn't work? Who cares, I got my benefits!'

And why are they the guilty party and not the management who let the situation come to that?

Ahh, so, if a homeless person breaks into your house and steals stuff, you'll blame yourself, because you're part of the society that let people become homeless?? I somehow doubt it- you'll blame the thief.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[ScentCone]

That isn't a union thing, that's a leftist thing. Unions are a subset.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[ScentCone]

There's quite a bit of editorializing in the OP...

There's quite a bit of correct editorializing in the OP.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[spune]

Exactly. American unions have been unable to effectively strike because almost all common forms of strike activity and solidarity are illegal. It is illegal to refuse to manufacture with scab materials. It is illegal to strike without authorization from national union leadership who have been bought off by the company in question. It is illegal to organize a general strike. Unions in America can't even enforce actual picket lines -- they can merely stand around outside asking nicely for scabs to respect their right to decent livelihoods. Due to these restrictions, many which were passed into law by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, the constant demonization of unions in the corporate-owned media, and how less than 5% of the private workforce and 7% of the public workforce are unionized, these worker's organs are completely powerless. And yet, many Americans are compelled to work 10 to 12 hours a day through several different jobs just to feed their families, never mind trying to pay for health care. Restaurants workers, for example, are almost entirely non-union and -- surprise -- restaurants jobs often pay less than minimum wage and flagrantly violate workplace safety laws. I've had friends suffer 2nd degree burns over both arms, who were forced to continue their 6 hour shifts in the kitchen under threat of losing their jobs and being blacklisted by other local managers. The absence of workers' organizations, not to mention *effective* workers' organizations, across broad swaths of the American workforce causes dozens of millions of poor Americans to languish in economic deprivation, thus also in medical, educational, social, and political deprivation.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Dainsanefh]

There are still some good ones out there. Filtering out the noise is the key.

However I have to disagree on one of the points you make:

"you make yourself worth paying more by increasing your value."

Try tell that to those job applicants that got their resume thrown out because of "over-qualified" due to the fact that they dig themselves into HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in debt to get that Master's / PhD.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Vidar Leathershod]

Yes, well I am very familiar with the "over-qualified" bit, and yes, it is tiresome to an extent. However, there is also some gut feeling that goes into those sorts of decisions. The following is not to say I support those notions, and I have no love for Human Resources departments.

Someone who cannot get a job that matches their qualifications, or has seemingly over-educated without purpose can set off red flags in peoples' minds. Are they unsuitable for the career they studied for? Are they lacking in common sense? Do they lack dedication? Do they flit from one flower to the next? Why are they seeking a position making $15 when that would not service their presumed student loan debt?

There are many reasons why people get Master's degrees or go after a PhD. I have met several different types, myself. A few of those types I would not hire, and not for reasons of being overqualified.

To reiterate, though, I despise those who throw away the resume on those grounds. They should be talking to the person first. Same thing goes for people who throw away any resume that is more than 1 page in length.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were 45,000 people on strike and only 110 acts of sabotage.

Correction: there were 110 acts of sabotage that you heard of. How many happened, but didn't make the National News?

I used to work for Verizon. Shortly after I started working, we went on strike. The union foreman clearly said to us "Remember- A grounded tip doesn't cut off service". Meaning that if the tip side of the circuit (ring/tip , look it up) was grounded, there would be an annoying hum on the line, but the phone line would still work.
There was no other explanation for his saying that except to incite us to sabotage (but 'safe' sabotage, that merely annoyed people, but didn't put lives in danger like completely cutting service might). That's right- the union foreman, advocating sabotage during a strike. Who'da thunk it?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[GateGuy]

... no Veteran's Day off for the grunts in the trenches that make these obscene profits possible. That's just greed.

They are replacing two holidays with two personal days. This allows the associate to observe any day that they deem to be a holiday as a holiday.

Including veteran's day.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[sonicmerlin]

An isolated forever alone libertarian retard like yourself would never know what it's like to stand tall with a group of people against a monstrous corporation that wants to lower the quality of your life.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not sure why people dislike them. Maybe it's another anti-socialist thing.
Its mainly the result of the very national (after several decades of cold war propaganda) combination of faiths (in: individualist world view; the invisible hand of the market; laissez-faire entrepreneurship myth; social darwinism mindset) and the frequent syndicalist use of harassment tactics. In theory a nice ideology but in practice almost blinds to the tricks that rigs the reality.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[gmhowell]

In Europe, these union acts aren't illegal at all. After all, how do you expect the right to strike to matter if the company can just hire replacement workers? Unions simply don't have enough power in the USA.

Not sure why people dislike them. Maybe it's another anti-socialist thing.

The anti-union sentiment stems from a number of sources. Various people will give one reason or another, but they all devolve back to corporate propaganda at some nascent point.

So first 'root' cause would be "if I'm a good worker, why do I need a union?" This harkens back to idiotic, Calvinist notions. See also: dominionism, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry.

Next up is good old fashioned anti-socialist thinking. Whether linking union activity to socialists or (preferred in the US) communists, there is a ton of this. "You could do better if they weren't ripping you off for dues, if you didn't have to watch out for the protected guy in the Union, etc."

And then there is the fact that plenty of union bosses are cut from the same cloth as management. Only out for themselves and shareholders. Quick to sell out a worker.

Whatever, I work in IT where everyone fancies himself John Galt.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[bhartman34]

Is it fair? No. But does that justify illegal activity? I don't doubt they were frustrated. But that doesn't justify illegal actions and intimidation, when they had other options. It's the "win at any cost" mentality that leads people to prison.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[bhartman34]

An isolated forever alone libertarian retard like yourself would never know what it's like to stand tall with a group of people against a monstrous corporation that wants to lower the quality of your life.

And this has what, exactly, to do with committing illegal acts? If you can't win legally, then you either suck it up and go back to work, or find another job. I say this, by the way, who spent a good deal of time unemployed in the past 2 years. I never contemplated knocking over a liquor store because I couldn't catch a break.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[radish]

I'm European, I'm left wing (well - reasonably so), and while I kind of understand the point of unions the reality of them here in the US is terrible. They cause far more harm than good, and I would certainly never join one. My wife is a teacher, and so has no option but to pay her dues and be a "member" (compulsory membership is just one of their evils), but when I see what they're doing to the education system in the name of protecting teachers it makes me crazy.

So it may be anti-socialist for some people, but not for me. It's about trying to run an organization/business efficiently and being thwarted at every turn by a bunch of self-important power crazed lunatics who just like to hear the sound of their own voices saying "no". Ugh.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[WorBlux]

In the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[WorBlux]

United States v. Enmons

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[WorBlux]

A lot of public unions are non-strike (and usually have some sort of third party to help in bargaining.)

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Nidi62]

Harass people at their homes? Try to force their way into people's homes? Really? Any evidence for those statements?

Like I said, firsthand comments from coworkers over two years that experienced this themselves. Union members blocking driveways with cars, putting feet in doors preventing them from being opened, and visiting people when they knew they'd be home (they had lists of people's home addresses and work schedules, which is a huge privacy as well as security issue).

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[nomadic]

So your argument is that because unions are immune from prosecution under the Hobbs Act, that they are immune from prosecution for inciting violent crimes completely? For that to be true, the Hobbs Act would be the only criminal law available to prosecute people for incitement to violence. Since that is obviously not true; there are many, many state and federal laws against promoting violent acts, your statement that "Unions leaders themselves are immune for any criminal acts or violence that may be committed upon their encouragement or command" remains unproven.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[QuantumRiff]

Have you ever woriked in a call center? People that are 'bright' and smart are punished. In a call center, they want consistency. They want you to follow the script, and they want you to lower your average call times. It is all about the metrics they can show at the end of the month. Actually serving customers is not even important. Its really sad that call centers like netflix and zappos get attention for encouraging their employees to do what EVERY OTHER call center should be doing, but sadly, support is seen as a non-essential function by the MBA that gets stock options, so its all about farming it out for the lowest cost possible..

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[BenoitRen]

Maybe it's because someone doesn't have the right to demand that a company not hire a replacement when they don't show up for work? Maybe, if you are easily replaceable, collective bargaining is your only method of getting the wage or benefits you want. But you do not magically gain the right of stopping someone else from working. You don't get the right to blockade the property of another.

As I already explained, you do have that right in Europe, because otherwise the right to strike would amount to nothing. It doesn't matter if you're in a large group. If all of you are suddenly replaced by others, there's no point in a strike because the company just keeps going.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[intheshelter]

That's the stupidest viewpoint I've ever read. If I suffer I want others to suffer? Really? I can't even conceive going through life thinking like that.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Dahamma]

That's not even close to citation of your claim.

It ONLY refers to prosecution for extortion under a law created to fight organized crime (Hobbs Act), and is ONLY APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL LAW. Since most criminal offenses are prosecuted under state/local laws anyway, this really doesn't change much in a legal sense.

I'll give you it's true that union violence is clearly under-prosecuted, but then again, so is police violence. But it's not codified into law, it's a failure to enforce it.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Eskarel]

And in the same era, corporations hired thugs to beat striking union members. Whatever your opinions of unions try not to judge them based on what happened to your grandfather in an era were there was a much larger rate of violence on both sides.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[LordLimecat]

Right after this strike, a customer lost their phone line. No dial tone. Just a tad suspicious. Especially when they called the repair line, and they were told "Don't you know we're on strike? Unless there is a 911 emergency, too bad."

Oddly enough, right after the strike, I got two calls in a day-- a home FIOS line down, and a business DSL line down. Both routers/modems were fine, eventually turned out to be a problem on verizon's end.

Hmmmmmmmm, a more suspicous me would suspect that unions really are thugs.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

She then told me that in fact, she was filling in. Her normal position with the company was in fact in a more executive capacity (I won't mention what, but it wasn't in the call center arena at all, and was instead in more mid-level non-tech functions).

It all made sense. She is likely a well-compensated, happy employee with some ambition. She strives to improve herself and her worth to her employer, and got rewarded for it. Indeed, she is likely perfectly able to be that kind of entrepreneur who goes on to make peoples' lives better by providing customers with things they want or need, and people with more jobs.

Um.

Can I make a comment here.

I recall a story, perhaps a parable that I heard years ago. It went something like this.

A rich young man, hearing that the poor were complaining about their job, decided to join them. After a week, he declared that he found the work bracing, invigorating, and quite a good change of pace from what he normally did. He simply could not comprehend that anyone would find such work to be undesirable. When he mentioned it to his "fellow" poor, one replied as follows.

"Yeah, it may be nice for you as a holiday, but you can get out of it anytime you want and go back to your comfy mansion. Try doing this shit every day of your life knowing you'll never get out and see how you feel."

An executive who does a low wage job will probably be more helpful and happy overall, but that's because they know that they've still got all their money and have a 0% chance of being stuck in that low ranked job. Further, I'm pretty sure said executive didn't have a supervisor breathing down her neck about how shitty she's doing, how she should be more efficient, etc.

Hell, I'm sure if you paid a worker at a call center an executive's salary and allowed them the same benefits, they would be INCREDIBLY helpful.

And lastly, please don't say you should "make yourself worth paying more by increasing your value." This is similar to people saying "Well if you don't want to be poor, work harder." Sometimes the companies don't *want* you to get more money so you can't get more. Other times there's no *opportunities* for promotion. In a pyramid, every block can't be the top one. But that doesn't mean you have to disrespect the ones on the bottom. Sometimes (I won't say all the time, hell the asshole manner the summary says they were striking makes me pissed the fuck off at them and hope they'd lose if true) but SOMETIMES, the ones at the bottom need a bit more compensation than they already do.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Savantissimo]

And how much covert sabotage was conducted by management, by policy? Those confusing tariffs that keep services secret and obligations obtuse didn't write themselves, you know. The apparently nonsensical procedures that create bureaucratic run-arounds are there for a reason - management evading obligations to provide the service people paid for. The overpriced equipment from incestuous vendor relationships cuts the service that can be provided for everyone. The lack of good troubleshooting tools for techs, even when such tools are relatively cheap means things stay broken. (Actually fixing things is too expensive, right? We'll have our field boys just fixat it, armed with nothing much more sophisticated than a voltmeter, then game the intentionally stupid metrics we ourselves set to make it look like we still provide service.) The lobbying that prevents competitors from gaining a toehold defrauds everyone, the whole public, and destroys the potential livelihoods of those who would have worked for the competitors and the capital of their investors. Union strikes have never committed a tenth the sabotage as results from management's everyday practices.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Falconhell]

Whereas of cours corporations are always fully honest and comply with the laws of the land. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Frankly i dont believe these claims anyway.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[mvdwege]

Of course, the possibility that Verizon has been cutting costs on maintenance, like any corporation led by blind MBAs, and that this bites them in the ass when the qualified people who have been keeping their services running on spit and baling wire walk out, that is not a possibility that crosses your mind.

No, it must be those eeeevil Union activists whut done it.

You Americans really are easily brainwashed sheep, aren't you?

Mart

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[AmiMoJo]

Unfortunately that is the only things employees can do to try and better their situation. We have stronger labour laws in the UK so most of the time it isn't needed.

What are you supposed to do if the law and your employer screws you? Bend over and take it? The situation should never have arisen in the first place.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[AmiMoJo]

These were not isolated incidents, these were systematic tactics being employed by the unions.

That same argument is used to stamp out all opposition, be they protesters or union members or the poor. Pick out the worst examples, tar everyone with the same brush and use it to squash them.

There are good and bad unions, good and bad people, good and bad employment law. It would be nice if we could have a debate about the actual issues that lead to the strike rather than character assassination and anecdotes.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Enmons

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Dinghy]

I worked in a call center and pretty much lived by the motto suggested. Sure, call centers are based on metrics, but if it's a call center job it's not going to be that difficult and you can quickly get to the point of being able to offer exceptional service and going above and beyond without going out of the range of the metrics. Perhaps that's why I got promoted out of it after 13 months (while the company policy says that everyone's first position comes with an 18 month lockin).

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see that internet users are still being propagandized on slashdot to hate union workers and to call anyone who stands up to their boss "illegal"

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Talderas]

I had the fortune of witnessing first hand how unions protest government actions. I saw protesters holding signs. Fine. People do that all the time. They weren't the ones that I had problems with.

The ones I had problems with were the teamsters. Their form of protest was to drive semi-tractor trailers in slow circles around the capital building. Again fine but annoying that you have semi (with trailers) driving slowly around one block in a city. What crossed the line was the fact that they would straddle two lanes which would prevent any traffic from bypassing them (normally three lanes but the right most had construction) and they would stop and talk to people. This would impede all flow of traffic. The worst part is seeing police officers who were supposed to be keeping the peace during the protest that saw the truckers but invariably wouldn't issue a citation of violating a law.

This is my problem with unions, they (I don't care if it's individual members choosing to do so the union obviously gives tacit support of these actions by not trying to suppress them) encourage committing illegal acts to try to win. Then they get offended that people will go against them because of those types of acts?

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Talderas]

Call me crazy, but only about 2.2 million Americans are incarcerated out of the population of 307 million.

Going by that it seems to me that less than 1% of the American population commit criminal acts.

Can't really blame it on the American justice system when less than 1% of the population are committing criminal acts.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, people doing something that makes it so you can't just ignore their issues!

How horrible a crime! There's a reason why the police officers didn't arrest the folks doing that, they knew that the hammer of justice would not be an appropriate way to deal with that issue.

Yes, it inconvenienced you, but that was the point. So you resent it. Chances are you'd already resented them anyway, and are just pretending to be even-handed.

Otherwise you'd realize that if you were in the same position, you'd do the same yourself, because you'd know that if people had to pay attention, and not just ignore you, and your issues, then you'd have a chance of getting them to act.

But if they could just close their eyes, then it'd be no good at all. Sure, there's a risk of resentment, but as I said, it's just as likely you'd do the same anyway.

Because how dare anybody else have a problem that you have to care about!

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Ltap]

Much of this is due to the law. For instance, much of the USA lacks anti-scab laws, which prevent corporations from hiring replacement workers. Unions in the USA have to fight in a very unfriendly atmosphere and where much of what is standard practice elsewhere is illegal due to laws paid for by companies that are deliberately union-unfriendly.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[LanMan04]

I told her that she should not be working in a call center, she should be an entrepreneur with a more direct relationship with customers.

Do you have $100K to loan her to start a business? No?

It's not so easy as you make it sound...

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful bashing unions.
If you are an employee, they are on your side. It's the scabs that you have to worry about.
Luckily this ended well, and the union got some sort of deal. If they hadn't your wage's could have been effected. See, the scab is hungry, he's been out of work for a while, that's why he's a scab. So, when Verizion comes to ask him to work, he puts his ethics and his saftey aside to get something for his table. If he's that desperate he'll also take a lower wage. Verizion won't hire back the Union Man if they can get away with paying the scab less. Next ATT sees what Verizion does and tells their union, "take a wage hit or we'll oust you like Verizion did" and so on and so forth until we're all working for $5/day again. If the union had to do some jaywalking to keep us all from sliding backwards, it was worth it, kudos to them for having the courage.
Compare wages for your job in "right to work states" vs good states.
Do we want to be like Sweden or Malaysia?
     

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hit a picketer with my car once. Bitch stood in front of it and the look of shock and horror on her face when I drove right into her was priceless. She jumped on the hood of my car and dented it. She actually did not have any visible injuries on her, so I was able to deny the entire thing. Because I kept my cool, and the picketers became raging nut jobs over my audacity, the police believed me over them. This really upset the picketers. I was amused by the entire thing, because I was initially very angry that one of them was blocking my way. It worked out well, though... I claimed the dent was caused by them hitting my car with their fist, and I filed a police report so my insurance would cover it.

What caused me to respond to your post was that you describe union picketers doing all sorts of crazy shit like blocking your driveway. I ask, sir, why don't you just run them over with your car? They will always jump on the hood. As long as your speed is not too high, they will not be injured and they will not fuck with you again.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Editorializing... just read some of the comments. They are practically brimming with people accusing people doing the act of sitting as the same as breaking into houses, breaking backs and legs, and causing global thermonuclear warfare. But, not one real citation. It's very Palin/Bachmann-esk... "I learned my history in Sunday School, don'tcha know!"... and sounds like as much.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

because non-votes are counted as negative votes, which is kinda unfair for a lot of reasons.

It's not unfair to people who skip the vote because they have no interest in being part of a union. Logic would dictate that people who feel the strongest about the issue would show up for the vote, with the majority of those being in favor of the union. Throwing out non-votes seems a bit unfair to the people who didn't care about the union vote unless they could be exempted from having to join the union.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[LordLimecat]

You Americans really are easily brainwashed sheep, aren't you?

Yes, and those reports of Verizon employees cutting thru fiber lines is totally something I should ignore.

Honestly, even though I dont recommend them anyways-- If I found Verizon negotiating with people who sabatoged their customers, I would never work with them again. That sort of "protest" is never acceptable, and I really cant believe people are defending it.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there is the cold hard truth that most people don't have the option of moving up the corporate ladder. For some its poverty induced lack of education, supporting a family, whatever! What gets ME is the idea that one person's time and effort is valued so insanely more than another's.

"It is the foundation of the most powerful economy in the world. Instead of trying to get someone to pay you more than your position is worth, you make yourself worth paying more by increasing your value."

LIES! Sure it works for some cases, but the power of the economy came from crooked deals, greed, building on the backs of the laborers, and a great deal of military power to enforce foreign policies...

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[BenoitRen]

I was talking about the right to block replacement workers and incoming trucks.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[sonicmerlin]

No one's doing that though. 42,000 people strike and all you hear about are a handful of minor incidents. You don't worry about the numerous illegal acts Verizon has committed towards its own customers to squeeze billions in revenue from them over the last decade? Phantom illegal $2.00 charges, ignoring state and municipal buildout requirements, lobbying officials for favorable legislation, completely opaque 2 year cell phone contracts priced the same whether or not you bring your own phone? Perhaps you should read into what these strikers actually did, and how many of their acts were truly "criminal" in nature.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[mvdwege]

I never said that bad maintenance is the only explanation. You however seem to want to believe the sabotage story to be a priori right.

Yes, you're a sheep.

Mart

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[LordLimecat]

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. One of the two lines had been down for several weeks due to a tree branch. However, you expect me to disregard eyewitness accounts...on what basis again?

Conspiracy theory alert....

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[mvdwege]

What eyewitness accounts? I haven't seen a single trustworthy link to one yet. The best we got was TFA, which was a secondhand retelling of Verizon allegations.

Wanting evidence for what someone with a stake in the dispute alleges is now a conspiracy theory? You are beyond submoronic. Calling you a moron would be an insult to morons world-wide.

Mart

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[LordLimecat]

I misspoke-- checking my email, it was not an eyewitness account, but one coworker referenced local verizon cuts, Verizon themselves apparently released photos of the damage, and there have been several stories on the news about union workers blocking service vans.

Again, my mistake for using the word "eyewitness"; however if you think Verizon is going out and severing their fiber lines so that they get tons of calls to their understaffed call centers so that customers can call and get disconnected, youre out of your mind.

Tell me that this was caused by VZW corporate. Please do, it makes it easier to detect your bias.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[mvdwege]

if you think Verizon is going out and severing their fiber lines

That's nowhere near what I wrote. Moron.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Vidar Leathershod]

And why does she need $100K? I didn't. And easy has nothing to do with it. If your work is easy, maybe you should switch to something less easy.

Re:An offer you can't refuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, a true believer in the myth of the noble rich. Always a cute mindset.

Queue the union hatred

[BlackTriangle]

While your salary and pension are pissed away so that a few well connected assholes from rich famiilies can get richer. Nicely done, libertards!

Re:Queue the union hatred

[Spad]

I believe the phrase is "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because you're employed by a bunch of criminal arseholes doesn't make it acceptable for you to act like a bunch of criminal arseholes in return.

Re:Queue the union hatred

[Anonymous Coward]

And the counter-argument to that is:

"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"

Just because people may think of you as criminal arseholes, doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for the fights you are in.

Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Verizon. Profits have only doubled to $4.6 billion (http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/25/verizon-profits-nearly-double-but-miss-wall-street-expectations/) and yet it's trying to cut benefits to its workers.

Another corporate-sponsored propaganda piece brought to you by "anonymous"

Re:Blah

[fwarren]

If it is like anything else, the problem is not employees who are working. After all, it is easy enough to know if you can cover their pay and healthcare. It is retired workers that are the issue. Companies and Governments for the last 50 or 60 years have agreed to terms that both they and those in charge at the Unions knew would lead to a situation where for every working employee, there are 3 former employees being paid a retirement for 20, 30 or 40 years and benefits. That is not sustainable.

One of three things have to happen a) those organizations go out of business and default, leaving those retirees with nothing, b) the government will allow these organizations to default on these obligations or c) those currently working will have to pay a large burden AND be promised a lot less themselves for retirement.

Re:Blah

[JDAustin]

Look at the details though. Verizons business is separated into different operating units. The mobile operations unit (which is basically all non-union) generates the profit. The land-line unit (where all the union members are) has been losing customers and therefore shrinking, hence it doesnt make much money at all (if any).

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. There is some kind of astroturfer employee in Slashdot management.

Re:Blah

[cdrguru]

Do you really think land-line phone service is a growing market? They might be having growth in some places today, but be assured they are going down soon. How many young people are putting in land-line phones today? Where will Verizon get new markets from?

They are likely just planning for the future here, with a vast shrinking market staring them in the face.

Re:Blah

[ScentCone]

and yet it's trying to cut benefits to its workers.

No, it's trying to limit the enormous, unsustainable burden it will have dealing with retired union workers as they all live longer in retirement than they did on the job. You couldn't have missed what happened to GM for the very same reason, so you're obviously a fan of the same eventual "cure." Which is to say, the business must die, but be considered too large to fail, and thus get taxpayer money spent in bailing it out and semi-nationalizing it while giving fresh new equity to the unions while stripped away any equity owned by the people who actually bought and paid for shares of the company. Yes, we're on to you, anonymous parasite.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor verizion workers. having a job at a time when so many millions of people do not have any. or any benefits at all.

Yeah you keep tryin to make us feel sorry for people who had GOOD jobs. that paid well. I'm gonna go take a nap.

I would have fired them all. And the next day hired replacments who would be happy to have a job at all in this shit economy. Sometimes you got to take less if you want anything at all. And this decade is one of those times. Suck it up and get back to work you greedy fucks.

Re:Blah

[sonicmerlin]

The land-line unit has managed to survive against the cable ISPs because Verizon invested in FIOS. Now that Verizon ended FIOS investment and started laying off workers, in non-FIOS territories it's losing subs. That's what's actually been happening. Not to mention Verizon leverages FIOS to extend fiber to its cell towers.

Re:Blah

[LordLimecat]

You know what? You dont have a right to work. And those profits, IIRC, are NOT in the DSL or FIOS sector-- those segments are losing money.

But of course that doesnt matter.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

$4.6 billion. Now, how is that split up between their wired business and their Wireless business?

The company as a whole may be making a lot of money, but if they're top-heavy related to the Wireless side of earnings, and the union strikers are on the Wired side, well, the Union workers aren't the ones helping the company to make their massive profits.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Employees are paid what they are worth & the wire line business model isn’t worth anything. $4.6B from Wireless, wire line could be disbanded and they would still make similar profit.

Just what I've come to expect from Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses are always the helpless victims in every situation, striving their hardest in the face of the brutal attacks from those evil people who have to work for a living.

I'm sure the union people are all communists anyway; I heard it on TV.

Re:Just what I've come to expect from Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah actually I left for about 2 years because of that nonsense :-( I came back hoping some of the idiocy had died down but I still see nuclear / business apologists left and right. What sad is the people here are supposed to be critical thinkers. *sigh*

Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[leftie]

Nothing about the $252 million the top 5 Verison executives were paid the last 5 years. Nothing about Verison demanding cuts from workers when Verison profits were up.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's they were worth? If the executives were not satisfied with their compensation, they could have left.

That's what workers could do as well, except instead they engage in corporate sabotage aka, strike and try to extort the company.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

Want some ownership stake? Then buy some stock, dividend paying last time I checked/owned. Yeah, right, only rich people can own/buy stock.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[andymadigan]

Really? The fight was over $1000/yr per employee? $252 million is a big number, it's fun to claim people are greedy, but that's not nearly as big a number when you divide it over the number of years, and the number of employees who were striking.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[SpiralSpirit]

It is when you consider that Verizon has been making a lot more profit. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/25/verizon-profits-nearly-double-but-miss-wall-street-expectations/ they made four+ billions of dollars in PROFIT in a single quarter. They want to reduce employee benefits/wages at the same time. These workers should strike - at this point the company has shown they don't give a shit about them, and that the only way they're going to keep the same benefits they have now is to show Verizon that it can be hurt worse by taking them away. Henry ford said: There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. You see what's missing here?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[BenoitRen]

If the executives were not satisfied with their compensation, they could have left.

That's what workers could do as well,(snip)

How does that change anything? They'll just hire new people who do like to be fucked in the ass financially.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[mat catastrophe]

Maybe that's they were worth? If the executives were not satisfied with their compensation, they could have left.

That's what workers could do as well, except instead they engage in corporate sabotage aka, strike and try to extort the company.

HAHHAHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

Oh, wait. You're serious?

DIAF.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[grumling]

That profit came mostly from the wireless business (which is non-union), not the old wireline side.

Why should the union benefit from non-union labor's productivity?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[SpiralSpirit]

The non-union labor isn't benefiting either, so your questions is a false dilemma.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but Verizon does carry $53 billion in debt. Of course private companies always do a better job than the Government. They make money. They don't manipulate numbers to the advantage of those at the top. No, they're smart business men. Look how much they pay themselves. It proves they are smarter than the rest of us.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[perryizgr8]

if a worker doesn't like his job, he is free to quit, isn't he?? if he can't find a better job, then he should face the fact that he is expecting too much from his skill set. unions are the worst kind of bullies, they distort market forces and hurt everyone (including their members). if a verizon worker actually does work that is worth more than what he makes at verizon, he should not have any problem getting such a job elsewhere. but no, we'll form a union and commit crimes, and try to squeeze undeserved money out of people who do the actually valuable work (innovation and/or research).

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[ArcherB]

If the executives were not satisfied with their compensation, they could have left.

That's what workers could do as well,(snip)

How does that change anything? They'll just hire new people who do like to be fucked in the ass financially.

That's what happens when you work a job that anyone can do. If you quit, they will hire anyone to do it, probably for less pay. I guess they should be thankful that the company keeps them around when they could easily fire them or lay them off and hire someone else to do the job for less pay.

See, the trick is to find a job that no one else can do or that no one else wants to do. The first one requires skill and a lot of hard work to get to that position. The second just requires that you are willing to do crap work. Management fits into the first category. People that clean up crime scenes, for example fit into the second. Both get paid well. Everyone else is expendable and doesn't get paid much.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[ArcherB]

The non-union labor isn't benefiting either, so your questions is a false dilemma.

Were they laid off or something? I mean, they have jobs in this extremely tough economy. How are they NOT benefiting?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

On that matter, why should the CEOs benefit from the workers' productivity?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[SpiralSpirit]

that's your answer? they should be happy to have jobs? I suppose if you wanted a race to the bottom, your position would make sense. For the vast majority of society, though, your position is that of an out of touch elitist idiot. People like you are what's wrong with our society.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[SpiralSpirit]

kill yourself.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[perryizgr8]

seems like you're the one who needs to commit suicide.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for calls on the same wireless tower (a minority), wireless calls are routed through the wireline side.

Both units are tightly coupled together.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same reason that a cleaner deserves to be paid a fair wage even though they don't directly make any money for the company?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the wireless business route their calls through the wireline?

No wireline service = no wireless business as far as Verizon is concerned.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[ArcherB]

that's your answer? they should be happy to have jobs?

I suppose if you wanted a race to the bottom, your position would make sense. For the vast majority of society, though, your position is that of an out of touch elitist idiot.

People like you are what's wrong with our society.

Or, you can strike or demand unreasonable wages to put your company out of business or raise prices on those poor consumers who are having trouble making ends meet who are not ripping off their employers at the expense of the paying public.

Remember, this is about the wired telephone service wing of Verizon. This is a public utility for the areas they service. Customers who want/need wired telephone service to their homes of businesses have no choice but to pay whatever price Verizon demands.

Finally, while you may view pitching in for benefits as a pay cut for Verizon employees, you have to keep in mind that health prices have gone up considerably. Mine rose over 50% this year along. You can blame Obamacare of those greedy insurance companies, but whatever the reason, it costs Verizon more to provide these benefits. (Note, those greedy insurance companies existed two years ago when my premiums stayed the same. Obamacare is the only thing that has change... but I digress).

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[sjames]

It's about a company whose profits are up but it still tries to cut benefits to employees while it lavishly rewards the execs. They quite rightly want to stop that trend since the corporate psychopaths certainly won't stop it on their own any time before we slip into third world status.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[HornWumpus]

A 'fair wage' is what I would have to pay to find a replacement. Not a penny more.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

You're dead on here. If the company was 'hurting' so much financially, the executive level compensation would have been scaled back a bit. They wouldn't be paying out super dividends to stock holders either. Verizon is just full of sh*t on all fronts. Oh noes, our landlines are vanishing ! But our wireless side is exploding and it's cheaper to put up a cell site and run fiber to it than maintaining an ancient copper plant for traditional pots lines. Not to mention Verizon charges more for cell service :|

You will see this scenario play out once again in 2013 when AT&T contracts come up again. They will use the same excuses about how land lines are dropping, and how the employees need to give back the last ten years of any pay increases to help pay for their health premiums. All the while, executive pay is off the chart, they have billions laying around to buy other companies ( T-Mobile anyone ? ) and yearly profits are obscene. I'm really learning to hate American Corporate Greed.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Swave An deBwoner]

Thank you, excellent point.

Furthermore such a division is cleverly artificial for the Verizon corporation to make. They cut up their company into smaller and smaller tidbits and then propose different compensation based upon how much profit they attribute to each. Imagine a department store paying clerks in the "mens shirts" department differently than the "mens underwear" department because they profit more from shirts. (Oh, I imagine there will be somebody who worked in a department store that did just that who will chime in here soon, but you get my point I hope.)

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Swave An deBwoner]

No, a "fair wage" is enough to live decently. What you are describing is squeezing the worker until he bleeds excess profits for your company.

An excellent description of the human consequences of your "fair wage" can be found here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/140

and an "executive summary" of the book here:

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

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Swave An deBwoner]

Your tagline is sooooo appropriate here.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[HornWumpus]

If someone can't live 'well enough' on what I am offering they won't take the job.

Why do you hate people who's work isn't worth whatever you consider a 'fair wage'? They will never find work in your world.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

$1000 / year? No. http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/08/08/Verizon-Strike-Action.aspx $20,000 per employee per year. Google "Verizon billion 20,000" and you'll get about a million articles. A BILLION DOLLARS per year. Actually, even $1000 per year would be a pretty big hit to most families in this economy, but $20k is sickening.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Dainsanefh]

instead of spending money on weed and booze, time to load up shares of VZ, or T (AT&T) for that matter. One lot (100 shares) cost only $3500. They pay good dividends,

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[andymadigan]

$20K per employee? Even if my employer contributed 10% of my salary towards my 401k, the total cost my benefits (including medical and dental) wouldn't even be $15k! What kind of benefits are they getting that $20,000 would be a cut instead of an elimination of all benefits for every employee? 20K per employee in benefits costs sounds extremely high.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

That means they're making $10 million a year. Do you really think that's not greedy? Do you think that the number 6,7,8,9,and 10 top employees make a middle class wage?
I hate union bullshit as much as anyone else, but I bet you would feel pretty worthless if your boss made $10m and claimed they couldnt give you an extra 1000.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

What has each executive done to deserve 10 million a year? Did they deserve the raises they got? Since the company is profitable, I would say yes. Do the shareholders deserve big dividends? Since the company is profitable, I would say yes. Do the workers deserve a pay cut? Since the company is profitable, I would say NO. We're talking about $45 million dollars, less than the amount it costs to pay 5 executives. And less than 10% of this year's profit. Those greedy unions, yep you betcha. No reason they should share in the company's good fortunes, you know, having actually DONE the work that made the company profitable.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Falconhell]

Frankly, reading your posts you are a fucking moron, and your suicide would marginally increase the average IQ of the planets population.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Savantissimo]

The top 10% in wealth own over 81% of all stocks, 98% of other financial securities and over 93% of all business equity.
from: Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College

Unless one owns at least several percent of a business, you have no effective say in how it is run (CEOs excepted, of course.) The money paid to CEOs is simply a warm gesture of respect to themselves. Stockholders have no effective say when it is the management sets the slate of board candidates and votes all the shares that didn't send in a proxy. The board members want to keep their sinecures, so they go along with whatever the CEO wants for himself, using the cover of a compensation committee and a consultant who can be relied upon to deliver the answer the customer wants.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Savantissimo]

So people should take whatever the employer offers? No bargaining? Capital should gang up into collectives to bargain, that doesn't distort the market, but labor should not? After all the corporation is free to fire them all, or lock them out, right? But they don't, because they can't find that many replacements quickly enough to prevent a quarterly loss at the least. And in the middle of the great recession, you really think 45,000 people with specialized skills can all go out at once and find new jobs, when there are already ten million out looking for work? Verizon is doing well enough to pay over $50M to its top 5 executives a year (speaking of squeezing out undeserved money), to make good, increasing profits, yet they don't make enough to be able to afford to meet the obligations that they had previously been meeting? You do realize that no innovation or research is done by top telecom management, right? And that all the work of actually making the phones and DSL work is done by non-management employees, right? And that the issue is not employees squeezing undeserved money but Verizon not wanting to continue to pay the same health insurance that they had been paying, just because they thought they could get away with it?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[perryizgr8]

of course you can bargain. but breaking the law is not bargaining. its closer to blackmail. its like i go into a shop and force the cashier to give me a 50% discount by pointing a gun at him.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[perryizgr8]

frankly, read my original post and prove what i say is illogical. its almost funny seeing everyone staying mum about the topic itself and launching personal attacks against me instead. maybe i should take this as a confirmation of my thinking.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[el_gordo101]

Remember, this is about the wired telephone service wing of Verizon.

It's not just the consumer old-school copper phone line workers that were striking, but those from the FIOS and Business (phone, data) areas as well. Both of these are VERY profitable for Verizon, but the spin the company put on was "oh noes, we are losing money because people are moving to wireless". The workers involved are key in these two areas and Verizon knows it. The two unions involved are well aware of the drop in land-line plan old copper and have negotiated in the past to move workers from that part of the company to the FIOS/corporate areas as they have seen tremendous growth in recent years. Don't believe the corporate hype.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you devide it up by the number of people who got it and the number of years, or /25. Then compare to the cuts happening as a % of individual income.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Savantissimo]

No, it isn't like that at all - these particular laws were bought and paid for by the corporations expressly to give themselves power at the expense of their employees' natural rights.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[perryizgr8]

like the law which says you should not endanger the life of a child?

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

My company treats its employees like people. They're always keeping our benefits top notch. We get complements from other companies that we work with and have an almost flawless customer satisfaction.

During this recession, our company has never grown faster. The competition is scaling back and we have customers coming over from them saying how bad they were to work with. Not only have we gained about 25% growth in the past year, but we're not hiring and they're doling out raises again.

Guess what their turn over is... Turn over.. what's that? The only places we really lose people to is larger companies like Microsoft or Google.

A great company requires great employees. You don't get great employees by treating them like crap.

"Happy to have a job"?.. pffft. That's no excuse to exploit your workers.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a false dilemma. For the same reason you don't pay your mechanic more after you get a raise.

Re:Sounded like a Verizon corporate press release

[Savantissimo]

Like the law that says you can't maintain a picket line.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Two wrongs...

[rbanzai]

I can't support unions when they use the same kind of illegal tactics as employers. I believe in the power of the strike to compel owners to behave responsibly. I do not believe in illegal or simply irresponsible actions to try and achieve that result.

Re:Two wrongs...

[Hardhead_7]

Don't fall into the trap. Such instances were incredibly rare, and Verizon behaved much worse, repeatedly calling the cops to disperse union workers who were simply using their constitutional right to assembly. Remember who controls the media, and remember how it's reported. Then compare it to citizen journalism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy-Q5ct0AtY&feature=player_embedded) showing the exact opposite of what the summary says.

Re:Two wrongs...

[Anonymous Coward]

So as long as all the wrongs are on one side of the board you're okay with it? You're part of the reason this whole country is wage slaves...

Re:Two wrongs...

[sonicmerlin]

42,000 people and you hear about a few incidents. Sounds like most other sociopathic and brainwashed Americans, you're just looking for a reason to blame the workers and coddle the corporations.

talk about a one-sided summary...

[iwbcman]

That summary would be a joke if it was even remotely funny. Talk about missing the plot. Everyone should be proud of the CWA and the IBEW workers who organized one of the most important and successful strikes in recent memory. Let's get the facts straight: On the eve of the strike, Verizon announced it would pay a special $10 billion dividend to shareholders. At the same time, its negotiators were pushing for $1 billion in concessions from workers. The company has made $3 billion already this year, and nearly $20 billion in the last four years.


So Verizon, which has been insanely profitable in recent years, decided to reward it's hardworking employees by attempting to slash their health care benefits, freeze their pensions, denie new hires pensions and health care benefits and by attempting to prevent new hires from organizing in unions. All the while Verizon has been outsourcing more and more positions to firms overseas. Scabs struck 15 picketers during the two week strike. And FOX news, the likely source of this so called "summary", has been demonizing the hard working union members 24/7. While Verizon shareholders are swimming in the dough and Verizon execs laugh all the way to the bank.


I personally will never give Verizon one red cent until they start to do right by their employees. Greedy friggin corporate bastards, the lot of 'em.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should take a look at how much the Union Reps earn and what their headquarters look like. They certainly are not running at any deficit. I wonder where they get their money?

Greed is a round-a-bout. With many ways to get on.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your summary is even worse...

"About 45,000 employees went on strike on Aug. 7, after their previous contract expired. They work in the company’s landline division in nine states from Massachusetts to Virginia.

Verizon says that it needs to cut costs in the traditional landline phone business, which is in decline as more Americans switch to mobile phones. The company has proposed freezing its pension and switching union workers to its non-union health plan, which has higher costs for employees".

For a dying branch of their business (LANDLINE)... why wouldn't they cut? Just because they make money in another division doesn't mean it crosses over to another.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

So perhaps instead of just cashing the paycheck and pissing and moaning about the companies profits, the employees should own some of the stock and benefit from the dividends. Anyone can buy stock.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

There will be fewer and fewer jobs in USA exactly because of actions like the one described above. Why risk losing your investment to the government created inflation if you are going to be demonized as an investor for wanting a return on your investment?

This will give a good example to the rest of the industries that still allow unions in their shops.

Verizon announced it would pay a special $10 billion dividend to shareholders.

- yes, the shareholders. Those bastards, who were funding the operations. How dare they to want to escape government created inflation and move their money out of the USD denominated assets into something valuable?

I wonder how many pension funds are holding Verizon shares nowadays?

The company has made $3 billion already this year, and nearly $20 billion in the last four years.

- isn't that what business is for? Investing into it to make money? Who are you to decide what is a good return and what is not, especially given the government created inflation?

by attempting to slash their health care benefits,

The workers are striking because, they say, Verizon is preparing to make wide-spread wage cuts and to increase the amount employees contribute to their health care plans and pensions, among other things. ...
Additionally, Verizon does not plan to cut or remove its current employeesâ(TM) pensions. Instead, it hopes to move future employees away from pensions and into enhanced 401(k) plans, with increased contributions from Verizon. ...
A major source of contention between the two groups is health care. Union workers currently do not pay for their own health care. The company is now asking for the union workers to do so because of the continued increase in health care costs.

The non-union workers in Verizon are paying part of their health care premiums, the union workers do not. I am amazed that Verizon didn't try to tackle that issue much earlier!

As to pensions - companies should not even be in a position where they are forced to think about workers' retirements. SS needs to go away but so must this idea that company where you work is supposed to think for you about your own pension plan!

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[SomeKDEUser]

As per your post verizon was trying to reduce the benefits (salaries+pension+health care) of their employees. I realise you are a libertarian, and therefore are arithmetically impaired, but it works like that: you hire someone at some given level of benefits. If you want to change that, you negotiate. If they don't agree, tough luck, you signed the contract.

But maybe you think contracts only apply when they benefit corporations? Or maybe you think that people can assemble to form corporations, but not unions? Basically, you only have rights as an owner, and by extension, do not really own yourself...

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

I realise you are a libertarian, and therefore are arithmetically impaired

- I can add. I can count numbers like these ones: 1853 x 1900 - 350 x 1900. 42.90 x 500000 - 5.50 x 50000. I can figure them out.

you hire someone at some given level of benefits. If you want to change that, you negotiate. If they don't agree, tough luck, you signed the contract.

- really? So those bond holders who got screwed in GM deal, I guess their contract is worthless. As to workers - their contracts get re-negotiated, it's not something out of the ordinary, especially given the history of unions and how they just descend upon normal businesses and all of a sudden an employer is facing a dilemma: should I just close the shop? (some are doing the right thing of-course and do close it.)

Basically, you only have rights as an owner, and by extension, do not really own yourself...

- contracts should absolutely be upheld, and they are upheld until they expire.

Ever heard of contract expiring or do you believe that there is no such thing?

People who really do not own themselves are those, who give up their rights to their individuality and enter the collective.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

well thats what happens when your job is easily done by any fuckwit that can walk in the mall

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you know the answer, you should post a link. We could compare it to what the executives are making, and what Verizon is pulling in, profits-wise.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the Verizon union guys who you hold in such high regard went to a friend's business and cut his lines. They're fucking assholes.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're denying Verizon your business and expect that wont hurt their employees further?

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your contention that workers should be paid based on the profitability of the business vice the value of their labor? How exactly does that work in the marketplace? You seem to think that a business should arbitrarily compensate employees above market rates simply because the company is more profitable. Typically a more profitable company will may have slightly higher compensation in order to attract and retain higher quality employees, but if the employees are not of higher quality, why should they be rewarded? I also believe senior executives are typically overcompensated by this same logic, unless they actually did something that increased the long term value of the company (not the typical short sighted tricks to bump quarterly profits).

Do right by their employees? What the heck does that mean? The scabs seem to be perfectly happy. And why the hate for shareholders? Paying dividends is what publicly traded companies are supposed to do. I honestly do not understand the logic of your argument.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Insanely profitable? This is not remotely true. Last year they made 2.5B on over 100B in revenues. Even if they make 6B on the same revenues this year that's still not good. AT&T not to mention the vast majority of fortune 500 companies have better profitability.

And even talking about those profits... how much do you think the wireline (CWA/IBEW) business is a part of those profits? Verizon makes virtually nothing from that business. The majority of their profits come from wireless (non-union).

They are asking for concessions because they simply don't make any money with the wireline model as it stands today.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[shutdown -p now]

As an individual investor, I would very much rather invest in companies that don't treat their employees like cattle. Good salaries and benefits means happy employees who are proud of their job and do their duties well. It also means long-term loyalty and commitment from the workforce. It may not look as good on the quarterly statement, but it shows that company is considering longer perspective - the ones that chase numbers from quarter to quarter are the ones with stock that can fall just as rapidly as it rises.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

As an individual investor you are welcome to find the companies you are willing to invest into and do so, or you are welcome to start your own company and invest into that.

As to saying that employees are treated like cattle... excuse me? Verizon has 194,400 employees with 45000 striking union employees, so are you saying that about 150,000 employees are treated like cattle in Verizon? From what I see is that the 45000 union members are getting a deal, that is much above what the normal market is providing for that the non-union 150K employees are getting.

If having to pay part of your own health insurance and pension plan is being treated like cattle, then what about all the people who are doing their own savings and are paying for their own health insurance, are they the worst cattle of all? I prefer to invest my own money and I prefer to buy my own health insurance, does this mean I am cattle? I believe that allowing yourself to be treated as a herd comes from one's unwillingness to be an individual, who takes care of his own investment and other needs.

Good salaries and benefits means happy employees who are proud of their job and do their duties well.

- well sure, but what does being part of a union have to do with that? Good salaries do not come from unions, they come from healthy market and sound economy, which is the opposite of what unions and government spending achieve.

It also means long-term loyalty and commitment from the workforce. It may not look as good on the quarterly statement, but it shows that company is considering longer perspective - the ones that chase numbers from quarter to quarter are the ones with stock that can fall just as rapidly as it rises.

- it's not about stock prices, it's about dividends actually (if you are an investor that is). If you are a speculator on the other hand, then you prefer volatility to stability, you make more money that way, but that's like gambling in a casino.

Unions absolutely do not help long term company prospects, this is clear from all the companies that had unions and went under or where unions had to go away.

Neither unions nor government spending help your investments. In fact both of those factors are absolutely detrimental to your investments, just look at GM and Chrysler and notice that it's not the companies were bailed out from their financial problems, but it was the union that was bailed out and the investors were left holding empty promises, as the value of their portfolio was obliterated in a microsecond by the government resolution.

The real solution to GM and Chrysler problems would have been bankruptcy and restructuring of the debt, the bond holders and other investors would not have been made whole, they would have taken a haircut of-course, but the companies would have survived, would have been bought out at fair market value and would have been restructured and would have been doing sound business at this point.

Instead the government didn't just give a haircut to bond holders, but it cut their heads off, handed the bill for this atrocity to the tax payers all that the unions would be made whole instead. Of-course the market now is in worse conditions thanks to all of that, as failures are bailed out, the legitimate businesses (like Ford and others) suffer this and also now are faced with the moral hazard. Ford may be forced into bankruptcy by the union demands, simply because the unions believe that gov't will bail them out and screw investors.

As an investor the best possible decision for your investments would be to stay out of any union shops and in general to stay out of USA market, which is completely discredited by the government monopoly agenda of printing and inflating money, borrowing and spending beyond any means and abilities to ever repay the debts, all of the wars and business regulations and taxes and monopoly

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[shutdown -p now]

Good salaries do not come from unions, they come from healthy market and sound economy, which is the opposite of what unions and government spending achieve.

Unions are the only reason in the first place why we have 8 hour work day, strictly regulated child labor, and decent pay for workers. Until unions were formed, labor markets - not just in US, but all around the world - were buyer's markets. You either worked for what you were paid - which was usually the same everywhere (due to market being split between a few monopolies or cartels) - or you starved. Unions were what dug us out from that pit of unregulated capitalism.

I'm not saying that unions are always good, and I have my doubts about this particular story. But, historically, they were absolutely necessary. Unregulated capitalism = oligarchy of monopolists.

USA has proven that sound economy is based on real liberty and the less liberty there is the worse the economy is doing

No, USA has proven that sound economy is based on not fighting any major wars on your own territory for over 200 years due to convenient geographic location. There have been ample evidence that liberties alone do not make for a strong economy. For example, many Eastern European countries which have blindly followed the "laissez faire" model promoted by US - most notably, Baltic countries - are in deep shit right now, largely because of those very policies.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Dainsanefh]

That's why I invest in Chinese stocks. Self-righteous liberal have no place in the market place. I don't care if it is white cat or black cat, as long as it catches a mice it is a good cat. I don't care how a company treat a cattle, as long as it delivers the shareholder value, it is a good company to invest. Otherwise you will see yourself to bankruptcy much sooner.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

Unions are the only reason in the first place why we have 8 hour work day

- oh?

The first Model Ts were built at the Piquette Road Manufacturing Plant, the first company-owned factory. In its first full year of production, 1909, about 18,000 Model Ts were built. As demand for the car grew, the company moved production to the much larger Highland Park Plant, and in 1911, the first year of operation there, 69,762 Model Ts were produced, with 170,211 in 1912. By 1913, the company had developed all of the basic techniques of the assembly line and mass production. Ford introduced the world's first moving assembly line that year, which reduced chassis assembly time from 12½ hours in October to 2 hours 40 minutes (and ultimately 1 hour 33 minutes), and boosted annual output to 202,667 units that year After a Ford promised profit-sharing if sales hit 300,000 between August 1914 and August 1915, sales in 1914 reached 308,162, and 501,462 in 1915; by 1920, production would exceed one million a year.

These innovations were hard on employees, and turnover of workers was very high, while increased productivity actually reduced labor demand. Turnover meant delays and extra costs of training, and use of slow workers. In January 1914, Ford solved the employee turnover problem by doubling pay to $5 a day, cutting shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day for a 5 day work week (which also increased sales; a line worker could buy a T with less than four months' pay), and instituting hiring practices that identified the best workers, including disabled people considered unemployable by other firms. Employee turnover plunged, productivity soared, and with it, the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name.

So what I see is that a BUSINESSMAN without any unions, did the following for his employees:

1. Paid them 5USD/hour with 5x 8 hour days. This means he paid them 25USD/week. The price of gold was just over 19USD/ounce, that means he was paying 1.25 ounces of gold. At current gold prices of 1853/ounce, that's 2316 USD/week. That's 120,445USD/year.

2. Without income taxes to pay, Ford's workers were taking home over 120K in current money, and that's without income taxes. So in today's equivalent and given the fact that health insurance was about $5/year per person and doctor's visits were paid out of pocket and so was education and pension savings, because all of those things didn't have gov't involvement and so they were very affordable, today's equivalent would have to be at least 2.5 times that much, over 300,000USD.

strictly regulated child labor

- people always employed children in human history, the entire notion that child labor should be abolished only became possible with all the automation and increase of efficiencies in production, which required more educated work force. All of the regulations were ignored until the free market itself solved this problem by more automation and specialization. Children are a liability in current factories and manufacturing facilities, they are not help, so that's the only real reason why there is less child labor today.

No amount of regulations can stop a profitable thing from happening, you see. Also many children would benefit greatly if they were in fact allowed to work earlier than they currently are allowed. Before minimum wage laws children often became apprentices, learning useful trades and becoming less financially dependent earlier in life. What we have today is insanity - with children being taught that they must acquire more and more generalized education while getting into more and more debt to get it, as if they couldn't find work otherwise.

What really needs to be done of-course is that all labor and business regulations must be abolished, this includes any child labor laws. Modern production does not be

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a few jobs, and I've never seen a contract that guarantees a salary, retirement plan or benefits that wasn't also subject to change on a periodic basis. If what Verizon was doing actually violated contracts, then the unions would be forming a class action suit, not a strike.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[shutdown -p now]

I don't care if it is white cat or black cat, as long as it catches a mice it is a good cat.

You'll care when you're the mouse. Of course, by that time, no-one will remain to stand by your side.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

freeze their pensions, denie new hires pensions

Any rational member of the voting public would agree that no one, including almost all government employees, should be given any sort of pension (with the exception of acting servicemen and women and serving firefighters/police officers.), and here's why:

The people that negotiate pensions have a conflict of interest when negotiating them. Think your company is going to go under? That's ok! Just offer a big pension, and when your company goes under, it will all be guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (PBGC) of America. Don't let the name confuse you: that's just misdirection to hide the fact that it's the US *taxpayers* that foot the bill when your company goes broke.

Government unions don't have a conflict of interest, you say? Are you blind? Government politicians negotiate budgets where unionized government employees pay approximately 0.2 cents for every dollar they effectively put into their retirement - namely, their pension. Guess who gets to pay the other 99.8 cents when the pensioners come around to collect? That's right, the taxpayer again! Of course, by this time the politician is probably out of office and it's no longer their problem. There is no incentive in *either* case for negotiators to produce a fiscally responsible solution.

If you want to retire, fund your own retirement fund like the rest of us. (Roth) 401(k) and (Roth) IRA plans can be part of the union negotiations. If governments/business want to match the first 2-5% (which is generous these days), I'd even be fine with that - as long as the accounting is NOW, not dumped onto the back of the taxpayers later on.

Trust me, I cheered on Governor Walker for having the balls to chop off government union pensions at the ankles. Now to get the rest of the states and federal government to follow suit.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[shutdown -p now]

So what I see is that a BUSINESSMAN without any unions

Union movement was already in full force for a while by the time Ford started his business. One nice thing about unions (and labor movement in general) is that they don't have to be everywhere to affect business policies. The mere knowledge that employees can unionize already makes a pressure on businessmen to provide a better working environment.

One other thing that had a similar effect was a series of socialist/communist revolutions in Europe, and particularly the success of the one in Russia. For all its flaws, it did scare big business shitless because they realized that they can lose everything, including their lives, practically overnight if they press too hard. Some decided to launch a preemptive strike, and that is how fascism appeared, and why it had such a strong backing among the rich elites. Others have realized that stable society is one where people are certain in their future, and wealth disparity is not so big and prominent - and that is where the modern social democracy and welfare state come from.

No amount of regulations can stop a profitable thing from happening, you see.

Sure it can. That's why government retains the monopoly on the use of force. Those with the guns set the rules. In a properly functioning democratic society, people - through their fairly elected representative - have the guns.

people always employed children in human history, the entire notion that child labor should be abolished only became possible with all the automation and increase of efficiencies in production, which required more educated work force.

The problem wasn't child labor, it was unregulated child labor - as in, 14 hours work day and other pleasantries. If you think that's what "efficient free market" is, I suggest you try it with your kids.

And of course it wasn't automation which abolished child labor. The "nice" thing about human labor is just how insanely cheap it can get in a monopolized buyer's market for it. And when it's cheap enough, it beats machines in many areas. This is still true today, which is evident if you visit any impoverished third-world country. Automation only becomes cheaper when something else is there to prevent squeezing down labor costs.

what are you talking about? Oligarchy and monopolists are direct product of government regulations and intervention.

Yes, big businesses and their supporters all say that. But those of us who know our history know it's blatant falsehood. Monopolies do benefit from government regulation in countries where they can subvert said regulation to serve their goals (aka "government capitalism" - USA, China etc), but they thrive just as well in free market. Economy of scale leads to an inevitable conclusion - the most "efficient" market is the one with a single actor. That is the inevitable end state of any unregulated free market in an industrial society. 19th century has given ample empirical proof for this.

Where the hell do you see "laissez faire" model in USA? Where is it? Telecoms? They are government propped up monopolies. Military? Education? Insurance? Banks? Agriculture? Energy? Utilities? WHAT? Where do you see anything that is NOT a monopoly or oligopoly in USA?

USA itself is not laissez faire today, it's government capitalism (defined as government regulating market in favor of capitalists, rather than to protect the interests of society). However, USA foreign policy does promote laissez faire in other countries, because it is then easier to dominate them economically. Prominent examples of the outcome of such intervention were early economic reforms in collapsing USSR. Another one is Argentina. Baltic states are a more recent victim of the same.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are these Baltic countries, and they have been under constan

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

Don't forget that the real inflation numbers are about 13%, so in reality what Verizon seems to be doing is trying to get money out of US denominated assets and likely shift the capital abroad in this insane inflationary environment caused by government printing.

Basically they are losing 10% of their investment to inflation and I calculate that this has been happening for 5 years now.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

The mere knowledge that employees can unionize already makes a pressure on businessmen to provide a better working environment.

- conveniently you are sidestepping the actual reason why Ford did what he did - it was market pressure that caused him to do it, no threat of unions, which he wouldn't have allowed in his plants.

and that is where the modern social democracy and welfare state come from.

- no disagreement there. However I am looking right now and seeing how this very type of policy has lead the world to capital movement from the socialized states to those without such programs and what it is doing to all of these economies. You do realize that all of the social programs are now paid by debt and they will all end up badly, one way or another, don't you?

Sure it can. That's why government retains the monopoly on the use of force. Those with the guns set the rules. In a properly functioning democratic society, people - through their fairly elected representative - have the guns.

- USA is not a democracy, it's a republic, it's very important to understand that it was set up that way on purpose, because the Founders didn't trust democracies with their mob rules.

As to guns - what do you think they are used for all the time in USA? They are used to ensure that the government corporations (military industrial complex/energy/agriculture/etc.) get government sponsored contracts with all the wars. What did US do in Iran in 1953? It turned over a democratically elected government and changed the system by setting up a king.

And of course it wasn't automation which abolished child labor. The "nice" thing about human labor is just how insanely cheap it can get in a monopolized buyer's market for it. And when it's cheap enough, it beats machines in many areas.

- none of the child labor rules had any effect until the industries became too automated and became reliant on more specialized, more educated labor. You don't know what you are talking about. There was child labor in USA even in 1920s, with millions of very young children working.

This is still true today, which is evident if you visit any impoverished third-world country.

- they don't have enough capital to invest into more efficient production, to be able to churn out much more of the product with much lower costs and much higher quality. Their problem is they lack capital, well, now it's a US problem as well.

I expect resurgence of child labor in USA. The less valuable the dollar is, the more likely it is that there will be more and more antiquated practices brought back to life in USA as the capital is getting more difficult to come by and foreign goods will eventually become out of rich of unproductive American consumers with their counterfeit fiat and debt.

Monopolies do benefit from government regulation in countries where they can subvert said regulation to serve their goals (aka "government capitalism" - USA, China etc), but they thrive just as well in free market. Economy of scale leads to an inevitable conclusion

- economy of scale is a good thing, not a bad thing if it can provide the market with lowest prices and best quality.

If market is not getting a satisfactory product from a large company, there will be competition, it's all there is to it. The only real monopolies are created by government intervention.

were early economic reforms in collapsing USSR. Another one is Argentina. Baltic states are a more recent victim of the same.

- you are basically ignorant in all of these issues. I became aware of the scale of the problem in USSR when I was facing it in 70s and 80s, and it was extremely obvious how fast the economy was going into nowhere, as the government was printing trillions a year and still was unable to feed its own population and had to sell wea

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument is invalid because shareholders paid somebody else to own an interest bearing loan called "stock." The loan is based on theoretical ownership. So stockholders are the last people who really have earned the money.

Somehow you assume jobs are leaving the country because of unionization yet Germany has a robust job market & similar standard of living. Your argument doesn't hold water unless you're a Ayn Rand supporter who blindly supports the belief that greed is good. The point of corporations is to make money but to be unethical in the process is not acceptable. Four billion in profit last year and twenty billion in the recent years is no reason to demand union workers to pay for the benefits that are taken out of their pay before the compensation is detailed.

In other words the union has only the power to strike. When the corporation can simply replace them without another thought then the corporation has absolute power. Which is the reason why Germany is in better shape than the US. Take the greed out of your heart & realize you aren't in the top 10% of the income bracket & work to help yourself instead of the extremely wealthy.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize the company is free to do what they wish, I'm just arguing that it is a massive dick move. On a side note, I am sick and tired of individuals such as your self demonizing the hard working men and women of this nation.

I know this is hard for a libertarian such as yourself to understand, but just try to put yourself in the shoes of someone like this.
You work everyday. You work hard. Your performance review is stellar. The company is massively profitable. This makes you happy, as it is your contribution put to fruition. High fives all around. The executives take a pay raise for outstanding leadership. The investors get a huge dividend. You get a pay cut. Tell me, are you going to work hard next year, or just coast along doing the bare minimum so as to cling to your shitty job?

Because I've been there. I've been in a position for 4 years, stellar reviews every year, never a pay raise. It means I was taking a pay cut each year as the cost of living increased. The company was making billions every year. Health insurance premiums kept increasing, taking more out of my take home paycheck. Had I been unionized, I may have been in a better spot to get justly compensated. Nevertheless, I handled it myself. I went into my boss's office and asked for a raise. When I was denied, I turned in my two weeks.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Scabs struck 15 picketers during the two week strike.

If anything, this reflects poorly on the picketers. People should learn to get the hell out of the road when there's vehicular traffic approaching.
Verizon's actions are inexcusable, but I don't see how being a douche and using your daughter as a roadblock is supposed to make things better.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[kenh]

Your refusal to give Verizon "one red cent" helps the workers how, exactly?

BTW, any chance the workers own shares in Verizon? Might they not find themselves on the receiving end of that disbursement to the shareholders that, let's remember, own the company?

Were the concessions sought unique to this group of workers, or universal to all Verizon employees? If universal, why didn't more strike? If just this one group of 45K workers, why just them?

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[kenh]

As healthcare costs increase, who should shoulder the burden of the increase? The employer bears 100% of the burden currently (for these employees), if the costs go up, Verizon should either lower the benefits provided or lower salaries to make up the increase in benefit costs.

Were the employees willing to talk about a reduction in benefits to maintin their current zero-contribution level?

Were the employees willing to talk about a reduction in salary to maintain the same benefits and current zero-contribution level?

What were the employees willing to do to accomodate the increased cost of their healthcare coverage?

I suspect, nothing.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[LordLimecat]

At the same time, its negotiators were pushing for $1 billion in concessions from workers. The company has made $3 billion already this year, and nearly $20 billion in the last four years.

How much did its DSL and FIOS divisions make? THat would seem to be a far more relevant number.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another side for ya....

Perhaps because the parts of Verizon making money AREN'T Wireline... The REST of the company is run by non-union workers that truly work in a performance based environment for less than the union leeches.. They are the ones being FORCED to pick up the slack of the picketers or lose their jobs..

Verizon and any other company should cut ties with any unions and post the jobs for regular folks.. You know.. The types that don't have jobs but have hungry families and aren't afraid to work for their money instead of having their salaries mandated to their employers..

Union thugs are routinely overpaid for what they bring to the table.. Seriously.. copper splicers should make 150K or not have to pay ANY healthcare costs? A pension to boot??

They scoffed at the proposition of paying 100 dollars a MONTH in healthcare.. Regular Verizon employees pay over 320 a month and are graded and rewarded for meeting goals and objectives.. They don't get pay raises for just showing up and doing their mandated quota..

I'd tell em all to go pound sand and let em know that the company would be hiring back 50% of the jobs to non-union workers..
Lose your house or starve if you don't want to work like the rest of the world..

Wireline is a DEAD segment and hasn't made money since the last time the Unions pulled this shit... Keep talking about the "company" making all that money.. That's Wireless, Business and FIOS. Not COPPER...

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the company willing to discuss a reduction in excess profits or limiting themselves to paying only regular dividends? All those profits are due to the employees. The employees already pay for not only their salary and benefits but all the profit the company makes. Management and capital are essentially parasitic and exploitative. If management made the same money as people doing actual work, if the company stopped paying dividends, if the stock fell to below book, none of that would adversely affect the actual operations of the company. It generates so much profit, it doesn't need to sell stock or get loans. Good managers will work for normal salaries, just as good techs will - the ones motivated by money rather than doing the job well and being respected in the industry are precicely the psychopaths who should never be allowed to manage a company.

The value of money is what it will buy. Compensation that buys less of the goods that employees use, including insurance, is lower compensation. Labor has a superior right to compensation than does capital. Labor is selling their lives piecemeal, capital is trying to get something for nothing.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

you hire someone at some given level of benefits. If you want to change that, you negotiate. If they don't agree, tough luck, you signed the contract.

And these contracts are constantly being revised. What do you think happens when you recieve a raise or when your total benefits package improves? This also happens whenver companies realize that their costs are to high and they are forced to cut costs. They can lay people off, or reduce benefits or pay, or both. This happens all the time across corporate America and the employees of those companies then have to decide if they should stay at that company or try to find a job elsewhere.

Unfortunatley, unions think they are exempt from these free market forces. The union employees themselves are free to go look for a better job at a different company, but the company is not allowed to go look for a better (ie. cheaper) employee. The union constantly pushes the company for better pay and better benefits, but the company is not allowed to negotiate lower pay or benefits when the economy dictates such a move.

I realise you are a libertarian, and therefore are arithmetically impaired

You really weaken your position when your argument has to resort to personal attacks on anonymous people.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Savantissimo]

You seem to think that a business should arbitrarily compensate capital at above market rates, despite not actually needing that capital, while being entirely dependent on - indeed having no existence as a going concern without - the work of its employees. Capital does not produce profit, it chases it. Employees are the source of profit in established businesses. They are people, not interchangeable widgets bought by the great-gross. They, not the stockholders, are the company.

Capital, on the other hand, is just ledger entries in a computer at Cede & Co., born out of loans to brokerages not backed by deposits but ultimately by other loans made by the Federal reserve to its stockholders, the big banks who get to spend the inflated money supply first, before prices rise. It's a scam, the market isn't free, but totally managed for the benefit of bankers creating money from thin air. These thieves don't deserve greater rewards, power and respect than the people who actually make real value with their work, but dupes keep repeating the class-war propaganda of the thieves' wholly owned mouthpieces.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless is a different company with separate financials. That 2.5B was made by the wireline division, and it was after paying all those 45,000 employees and their benefits. $2.5B/45,000 = $55,555 per union employee. I think they have some room to pay the market rates - which are the union rates, set by negotiation.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[m50d]

As to workers - their contracts get re-negotiated, it's not something out of the ordinary

Huh? Verizon unilaterally wanted to change their contract, and proved unwilling to offer acceptable concessions. If you're saying that negotiating changes to a contract is something normal, sure - but so is going on strike when negotiations break down. If you're arguing that employees should just let Verizon change their contracts however it likes, you're insane.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[m50d]

As healthcare costs increase, who should shoulder the burden of the increase? The employer bears 100% of the burden currently (for these employees), if the costs go up, Verizon should either lower the benefits provided or lower salaries to make up the increase in benefit costs.

Nope. Verizon agreed to cover healthcare, not to pay X towards it; if the costs decreased you wouldn't see them increasing salaries to make up for it. If Verizon didn't want to shoulder the risk of changing healthcare prices they should've paid higher salaries and not provided healthcare.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the Verizon union guys who you hold in such high regard went to a friend's business and cut his lines. They're fucking assholes.

And you were seen on security video removing equipment from a friend's house while he was away.

What is that you're saying? You want proof or a citation from a reliable source? Why? You didn't seem to care about that when you were slinging your unsubstantiated mud.

Sheesh....

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Syberz]

But... But... I keep hearing that tax-cuts to big corporations which allows them to make more profits were supposed to be good for the people, you know, create jobs and better compensate employees and stuff...

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's so successful - they ended the strike without resolving anything

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

All those profits are due to the employees.

- that's a misunderstanding of business. Profits are due to the correct organization of capital, land, tools and human resources.

The employees already pay for not only their salary and benefits but all the profit the company makes

- more misunderstanding. The investor pays for all of this. Investor had to save money (or get a loan from other people who saved money), which means somebody had to produce (work) and postpone consumption in order to use the saved production for investment.

Good managers will work for normal salaries, just as good techs will - the ones motivated by money rather than doing the job well and being respected in the industry are precicely the psychopaths who should never be allowed to manage a company.

- who is going to forbid 'psychopaths' from running companies?

You don't like the management, quit. Form your own company, you believe you are not a 'psychopath', yes?

As to what constitutes a 'normal salary', well that's funny. In current situation with many companies being really bankrupt but being bailed out by governments, all of the notion of 'normal salary' went out of the window. The management knows that the company is insolvent, and here is a bunch of free money from government - it only makes sense to take as much of it as humanly possible - it's free money.

On the other hand those who run their own businesses in real competing markets and do not get government sponsorship, they get the salaries that are left over from all of the expenses less all of the revenues. When all the loans and interests are paid out, when all the expenses are covered, worker salaries are paid, utilities and taxes are paid, whatever is left over belongs to the management. They can choose to reinvest the money or they can choose to give themselves salaries.

You see, a company owner gets whatever leftovers from running a business after the books are balanced and necessary investments are made. However salaried workers get their compensation that they earn from 9 to 5, it's guaranteed and it's what they want - very little risk and limited work hours in exchange for a guaranteed salary.

Business owner never stops running the business, not in the evenings, not at night, not on vacations, never. Anything they can get out of the business for themselves is quite 'normal'.

The value of money is what it will buy.

- are you Ben Bernanke? Value of money is very precisely defined by US coinage act of 1792:

The Coinage Act of 1792 set the value of an eagle at 10 dollars, and the dollar at 1/10 eagle. It called for 90% silver alloy coins in denominations of 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/10, and 1/20 dollars; it called for 90% gold alloy coins in denominations of 1, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/10 eagles.

Compensation that buys less of the goods that employees use, including insurance, is lower compensation.

- whatever that means. Compensation is based on market needs, regardless of spending.

If you believe that compensation must be related to what the employees are spending, well then, how about hiring people who are spending on yachts, airplanes, submarines, private armies and harems and who want you to fund all of that by compensating them enough for all of it?

Labor has a superior right to compensation than does capital.

- capital is deferred consumption, derived from labor - production. So are you saying that labor has superior rights to labor?

Labor is selling their lives piecemeal, capital is trying to get something for nothing.

- only in broken economies and societies people can spout such nonsense.

Capital comes from savings, and savings are deferred consumption. Somebody has to produce enough to be able to save capital for reinvestment. This mea

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

My argument is valid because even though stock can change hands, the original investment stays where it is - the company, and any of the current stock holders just bought that debt up, which does not diminish the fact that they hold company's debt - it's their savings they used to buy the stock. Savings come from deferred consumption, which means savings come from people's work, which produced some profits, that they didn't consume but instead re-invested into more production.

Of-course there is more to it, some people in a company receive part of their compensation as stock options as well. There is common law that is about 150 years of age now in USA, that bond holders - creditors, are the first people to receive part of the money if a company goes bankrupt and is liquidated, so you are clearly wrong on this.

Somehow you assume jobs are leaving the country because of unionization yet Germany has a robust job market & similar standard of living.

- jobs are leaving USA not because of private unions, but because of government interference with the market. All of the business regulations, taxations, subsidies to monopolies, inflation of money by Fed policy, all of this is causing capital flight. Germany does not have a 'robust' job market. Germans themselves are quite poor compared to the Americans, as Germans do not buy on credit usually, they are living within their means. Europe is actually quite poor with few exceptions.

The point of corporations is to make money but to be unethical in the process is not acceptable.

- what is unethical here? The contracts are being renegotiated, are negotiations unethical? Why shouldn't a company try to lower its costs, now that the premiums for health insurance are rising higher than ever, specifically based on the way that the employees are voting in various elections and the elected government is regulating and subsidizing health insurance and provider oligopolies and causing massive price hikes.

No no, what is unethical from my POV is that an employer should be held responsible for rising costs of services, that are direct result of the majority of voters' (employees') actions.

Four billion in profit last year and twenty billion in the recent years is no reason to demand union workers to pay for the benefits that are taken out of their pay before the compensation is detailed.

- IT IS A HUGE REASON. You are looking at these profits and you are thinking: wow, 4 billion (actually it's 2.5)! Well the revenues are 100 billion, so that's 2.5% (4% for you), which is ridiculous given that real inflation in USA is at around 13%.

The investors need to pull as much money as possible out of that entire operation and transfer it out of US denominated assets and into foreign businesses. It is absolutely imperative that they do this, because they are getting negative rates of return. AFAIC the company is going to fold within 1-2 years, it's going bankrupt. Sure, government may step in and bail it out too, it's not the first time US government would have overstepped its authority, but that wouldn't serve the public interests at all, because just like with GM/Chrysler/Banks/Insurance companies deals, all of the bad debt and bad decisions and moral hazards are then transfered to the shoulders of US tax payers.

In other words the union has only the power to strike. When the corporation can simply replace them without another thought then the corporation has absolute power.

- market forces trump any of this sentiment, but many countries are screwing with market forces, but at the end they will be the ones suffering the market forces screwing with them. There is always reaction to any action.

Which is the reason why Germany is in better shape than the US.

- bullshit. Germany is in better position than USA because Germany is under-consuming and overproducing. People in Ge

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

I realize the company is free to do what they wish

- not exactly true though, is it? With all the government regulations over employers and all the rights given to employees, which of-course obviously comes from the fact that employees are majority vote, while employers are minority, the labor regulations do not allow companies to do as they like. If that were the case, USA wouldn't have 20% unemployment and this current economic crisis.

The executives take a pay raise for outstanding leadership. The investors get a huge dividend. You get a pay cut.

- makes perfect sense. You are not the investor in the company, you are part of the system that was organized by investors: capital, land, man power. As long as you are working for somebody else and not for yourself, you are just a resource, and all resources are subject to cost cutting measures to increase revenue.

The company was making billions every year.

- likely the company was losing money to government caused inflation, which results from majority voting block (employees) wanting all sorts of free stuff for nothing, so government increases spending but doing so causes capital outflow, and then government prints money.

Health insurance premiums kept increasing

- this is caused by government intervention into health care. Up until 1965 people bought their own insurance and paid for medical procedures out of pocket (unless the procedures were more expensive than the insurance deductible). Government got in, changed the rules, became massive sponsor of insurance and health care providers and caused prices to skyrocket. Where government does not play such a big role, like in all of the technological advances, prices are constantly dropping - you don't have to have government providing you with a cell phone, a TV or a computer, because prices are constantly dropping even though the technology is improving and becoming more and more complex. Still prices are dropping. Again, this is government creating monopolies by restricting competition and getting paid by monopolies, which is all possible only because the people collectively decided that government is there to do this precise thing.

Had I been unionized, I may have been in a better spot to get justly compensated. Nevertheless, I handled it myself. I went into my boss's office and asked for a raise. When I was denied, I turned in my two weeks.

- obviously you overestimated your importance to the company. However you did what you did and good for you. So I guess you found something better than? Excellent.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize you are a socialist, and therefore are logically impaired, but:

If you want to change that, you negotiate. If they don't agree, tough luck, you signed the contract.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they currently negotiating the renewal of their current contract? So they don't have a current contract with the workers, which is what gives them the ability to strike...

On a side note, the captcha was 'unionize', how fitting.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing the media isn't mentioning is that the IBEW and CWA members have taken a concession of higher cost of living wage increases in lieu of paid medical benefits.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

Once the contract is up for negotiations, any side can require any changes, so what's your point? Verizon can require changes like these.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[m50d]

So sounds like the only way to make the benefits in your original contract worth the paper they're printed on is to unionize. I don't see how you can keep putting an anti-union spin on this.

Re:talk about a one-sided summary...

[roman_mir]

Do you understand that contracts expire or not? Are you pretending not to get it?

Seriously.

[meowris]

"...as far as to instruct his young daughter to stand in front of a Verizon truck.." Off topic, but, how can a person like this even qualify to be a parent?

Re:Seriously.

[Lehk228]

Well it sounds like a criminal act to me, there should be no problem finding the arrest and conviction records if this actually happened.

Re:Seriously.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no qualifications needed to become a parent. Anybody can join. Whether you think this is a good thing depends on your perspective. Governments that change this policy tend to go downhill on human rights very quickly.

Re:Usually a double-game

[itsenrique]

Mod parent up. This is known to people coming from more liberal backgrounds I guess, but everyone should be aware.

Slashdot has never been a neutral reporter, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this write-up kind of ridiculous. Two sentences in the middle that don't accomplish any legitimate reporting goal, but do bias the reader in favor of poor, tiny little Verizon and against the big, mean unions... "Illegally blocking a truck"? Are you effing kidding me? My god, I can't imagine Verizon has ever committed a act as heinous as having someone stand in front of a truck. Truly, these union fat-cats are monsters.

Take out those two sentences, and you've got News for Nerds. As it is, you've just got stupid corporate shilling and ridiculous, unthinking anti-union sentiment.

And the others..?

[mayberry42]

What really pisses me off about union workers is how selfish they are, when they claim to be otherwise - it's become a cartel. Did the (incredibly foul-mouthed) union worker think of the families of the other two drivers? Of course not - all that matters is their own well being and screw the rest of the company / people. I recall working for a top university not too long ago and I was supposed to get a new desk placed for me from an office next door. I offered to do it myself when my boss told me not to touch it, as there was a union guy in charge of that. Turns out that, had i moved the desk myself, we could have faced some serious fines for "taking away his job".

Here's another example: instead of getting fired, teachers are getting paid to do jack shit waiting their union "trial" to make sure they really should be fired. At times, this could take years - that's right, years that teachers are getting paid full salary for doing nothing (I actually think they created a parody of this in Futurama).

Or how in 2005(?) Union workers halted NYC public transportation, significantly affecting the entire economy. My brother was right: all they care about is increasing their share of the pie, not the total size. And people wonder why I'm so anti-union.

mod me troll if you like, i don't care.

Re:And the others..?

[paiute]

What really pisses me off about union workers is how selfish they are, when they claim to be otherwise - it's become a cartel.

Enjoy your race to the bottom. Hey - maybe you'll win!

Re:And the others..?

[betterunixthanunix]

Or how in 2005(?) Union workers halted NYC public transportation, significantly affecting the entire economy

Yeah, and the workers were punished for it: every day on strike was matched by a day without pay.

Re:And the others..?

[Hardhead_7]

Once upon a time, people looked at union worker's higher pay rates and benefits and said, "I want the same for my family." Thus, the modern middle class was born, and the gap between rich and poor was narrowed to the smallest in American hisotry.

Today, people say, "why should those union guys have it so good? I want them to suffer just like me!" And now the middle class has turned against itself, and the gap widens to historic levels. I hope it'll turn back around some day, but our corporate masters have gotten really good at turning us against ourselves, and at labor unions that exist to help us.

Re:And the others..?

[cebarro]

These workers didn't ask for ANY increases. The company showed up and asked for 20-30K in givebacks per employee and wouldn't budge on ANYTHING.

Re:And the others..?

[magamiako1]

It's amazing isn't it? The reason being is because they've successfully taught people that they too can be millionaires. Little do they know that class jumping is NEARLY impossible.

Re:And the others..?

[andymadigan]

I'm not in a union, there's no union for my profession. Sure, I don't get a pension, but my income went up 50% in 12 months. I'm not management, I'm just white collar.

Unions create a system where smaller businesses can't get enough skilled workers because they can't afford the level of benefits given by giant corporations. Unions take their dues and use them to line politicians' pockets to keep the system that way.

Meanwhile, businesses in Japan and China don't face the same costs and are able to out-compete U.S. businesses. The union's solution to this is to demand that Americans only buy American goods. I'm rather happy I didn't buy a GM car before the bankruptcy, as the warranty would no longer be valid.

I'm a liberal, but I think benefits like healthcare should be provided by the state, and I don't want one cent of my paycheck going to a union.

Re:And the others..?

[mayberry42]

Strange: my family made it pretty well without the need of unions to force and coerce people to do their own bidding (by, you know, actually working competitively). Furthermore, I could agree with you that, in the start, unions did serve a positive purpose. Yet the conditions and situation back then were far worse than they are now, and their demands typically involved improvements in safety - fair enough. Yet over the years, unions have become cartels to force companies to do their own bidding at the cost of everyone else (do you really think that NYC transit workers make that little? MBTA workers in Boston typically made 40-50k/year - more than what I made working in finance and actually graduating from college). Also, don't be so naive to think that unions are there to help us: they only help themselves at your cost - i've seen it happen every single time. And not to sound condescending (in all seriousness): go read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Re:And the others..?

[mayberry42]

Perhaps you're right. Yet that's absolutely NO excuse to use your little girl as a roadblock and make threats and intimidation to coerce others to stop doing their jobs just because you don't like the situation you're in.

Re:And the others..?

[br00tus]

Less than 7% of private workers in the US are unionized, yet you see it as a "cartel". Verizon has a monopoly on land lines in the North East and mid-Atlantic (with AT&T and Qwest covering 99% of the rest of the country), yet you don't see that as a cartel. Verizon, Sprint and AT&Tmobile are three companies who also control over 99% of US wireless, yet you don't see them as a cartel. The wealthiest 1% of the country, most of whom inherited all of their wealth, owns the majority of bonds, over 40% of stocks and so forth - but they're not a cartel.

The average, working, wealth-producing person is not cartelized at all in the US. The rich parasite heirs who you worship are who rules the US. One of the reasons the US economy has had sluggish growth for decades, while the second largest economy in the world, China's, has been growing at 10% a year for 30 years. Not much will change in that respect in the US - the mass of boot-lickers like you, along with the fundamentalist crazies, will succeed in holding the US down as the rest of the world passes it by...

Re:And the others..?

[Hatta]

My brother was right: all they care about is increasing their share of the pie, not the total size

You could say the same about anyone in a capitalist economy. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with capitalism.

Re:And the others..?

[garyebickford]

Actually that's a popular myth. It's a lot more complicated, but the biggest factor was the usual one - in a mature economy the only thing that increases the standard of living is technological advance. One of those advances was that the size of businesses such as the railroads required the creation of publicly-held corporations (a fundamentally democratic institution) and the need for a professional management structure. One can even see the institution of labor laws (which were indeed largely the result of labor lobbying and a popular sense of rightness) as one of those advances.

It's arguable that the unionizing of the late 19th and early 20th century accelerated the process of diffusion outwards from the centers of wealth, but it's not certain. The big labor strikes of the early 1900s can be seen just as easily as the last gasp of the old methods, rather than the first wave of the new.

Re:And the others..?

[mayberry42]

On the contrary, I'm one of the most capitalist people you'll ever meet. Capitalism is about improving the product and increasing benefits for everyone involved through voluntary trade (voluntary being the key word here). What's going on here is NOT a form of competitive, voluntary market, but rather one group of people forcing others to stop their work for their own personal reasons. This is not capitalism; not by a long shot.

Re:And the others..?

[garyebickford]

Oddly enough, the Chinese economy is at least an order of magnitude more stratified than the US economy. Nearly every medium to large business in China is owned by the PLA, its friends, and a few zillionaires. While the mean individual income is about $7500 pa (way up in the last three decades), something like 90% of the people live on one or two dollars a day. And independent unions are illegal.

Oh, and by the way - I don't have the numbers handy, but the wealthy in the US are more likely to have started out poor than in any other country in the world. A huge percentage of millionaires in the US made the money themselves, and another large percentage are in the second generation.

Re:And the others..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The smart people want to increase the size of the pie.

Re:And the others..?

[perryizgr8]

wrong. steve jobs increased the smartphone pie by 10x, and now holds 80% of it. this is what is called capitalism. ditto with bill gates and software, mark zuckerberg with social networks.
ps- numbers made up, but you get the drift...

Re:And the others..?

[makomk]

Actually that's a popular myth. It's a lot more complicated, but the biggest factor was the usual one - in a mature economy the only thing that increases the standard of living is technological advance.

Technological advance is necessary to increase the standard of living, but it's not enough to do so by itself - there's nothing about it that ensures more than a few people see an increase in their standard of living. In fact, if anything it has the potential to have the opposite effect: as technology becomes more advanced, it requires more in the way of capital and raw materials and less in the way of labour, which concentrates wealth in the capital-owning classes whilst screwing over everyone else.

One of those advances was that the size of businesses such as the railroads required the creation of publicly-held corporations (a fundamentally democratic institution) and the need for a professional management structure.

The "professional management structure" is part of the reason why we're screwed right now. We've somehow ended up with a distinct CEO class whose members can give each other jobs and vote each other pay rises at the expense of everyone else in society...

One can even see the institution of labor laws (which were indeed largely the result of labor lobbying and a popular sense of rightness) as one of those advances.

Labour laws - at least in the US - were a result of businesses' activities being too nasty to be politically viable and of the fear of a Marxist revolution. These days no-one's really scared of Marxism and thanks to better understanding of the media and better spin (see also: this /. summary) there's no political will to stand up to large corporations - indeed, any attempt to do so is portrayed as evil and harmful to everyone, whereas benefitting big businesses and the wealthy is painted as the path to success.

Re:And the others..?

[SomeKDEUser]

Smaller businesses should be in favour of universal medical coverage, then. This would level the playing field.

Re:And the others..?

[ArcherB]

Today, people say, "why should those union guys have it so good? I want them to suffer just like me!" And now the middle class has turned against itself, and the gap widens to historic levels. I hope it'll turn back around some day, but our corporate masters have gotten really good at turning us against ourselves, and at labor unions that exist to help us.

See, back in the Utopian day you speak of, union members were proud of their work and it was well known. You could expect on American cars to be the best, most reliable cars on the planet. An union constructed building would be one that you knew was not only up to code, but surpassed it. Union members were their own foreman and made sure that all union members were doing their jobs RIGHT.

That's not the case any more. Now you have union members standing around waiting for the union electrician to plug something into a wall socket. You have union members enter a "job bank" requesting a job that is not available in their area and sit around and nothing for years waiting for a job that no longer exists. Now you have union members who are completely incompetent, lazy and cocky because they know they can not get fired. Now you have people literally attacking, even shooting and vandalizing non-union shops and their own coworkers who don't join them. To make sure the operations continue, they want to make all union votes completely open, meaning union thugs may see how you voted to make sure you voted right.

Meanwhile, you have workers that still take pride in their job who work hard and put in the extra hours to get ahead only to see their promotion go to some union member that does nothing but has been at the company doing nothing longer than you have and union rules will mandate they get promoted before someone newer. You have small businesses trying to compete getting put out of business because they are getting harassed by union members of their trade or lose out to jobs because a union may provide kickbacks to your former customers to make union work cheaper "Walmart style". You bust your ass to have a job, pay for your own benefits and struggle to pay your taxes only to see those that are paid with your tax dollars go on strike and literally shut down your government because they DON'T want to pay for their benefits. They want you to pay for your health insurance AND theirs. There are even unions that force non-union members to pay union dues.

And you don't understand why people don't like unions any more? I too hope it will turn back someday to a day when a union not only takes care of their workers, but also guarantees that a union product is a BETTER product. When times get tough, a union is willing to make concessions, even if only temporary, to help the company make it through a tough time and ensure that everyone still has a job. I want to see a union throw a member out for showing up late or doing shoddy work. Until that happens, unions will continue to get the reputation they deserve.

Re:And the others..?

[garyebickford]

Technological advance => standard of living is Economics 101. You're confusing the mean with questions of distribution. Prior to these technological advances, there was much less wealth to go around, and those who owned outright the biggest companies of the day were orders of magnitudes wealthier than their employees - much more than today. Technology has no inherent force toward or away from capital - for example, much of recent IT tech advances has given individuals much more power over information (vis. the 'Arab Spring'). During the period from the early steel industry through the 1950s much of tech advance had to do with industrial scale, which did have that effect. But that's not always, or even commonly, the way it works. The typewriter is considered by some to have been the single single factor in the emancipation of women and bringing them into the work force (but the need for processing paperwork due to large scale corporatism was also a factor.)

CEOs are not really related to the rise of the 'professional management' class - they existed before under different names, but until publicly-held corporations they were either the owner, or answered only to a small group of owners. IOW, that class existed before, and were previously much more isolated from the mundane than they are now (if one can imagine that). But flacid corporate boards (generally composed of the same group) have certainly allowed too much distortion in the last few decades.

I'm not sure of your point re Marxism, but I was a freshman in high school when I did a comparative analysis of communism and capitalism, and came to the conclusion that Marxism can not succeed, as it fails to provide a stable feedback loop - "To each according to his needs, and from each according to his abilities" is constructing two isolated unstable systems that are doomed to fail. In practice, as we have seen in the last century, the feedback loop ends up running through the political structure, engendering a corrupt bureaucracy. In fact one can argue that is the problem with the internal structure of corporations - internally they operate as Marxist centrally-planned bureaucracies that encourage cronyism, corruption and competition based on political machinations rather than competence and performance.

Re:And the others..?

[betterunixthanunix]

do you really think that NYC transit workers make that little? MBTA workers in Boston typically made 40-50k/year - more than what I made working in finance and actually graduating from college

So to "prove" that NYC transit workers, who unlike Verizon workers are public employees, don't "make that little," you cite the salaries of Boston transit employees (who are also public employees), then complain about how you do not make as much money working in "finance." Sounds like you have an undeserved sense of entitlement, since you went to college and feel like you need to be repaid for those years spent studying.

Of course, your finance job does not entail any danger to your life or health, or even a danger of getting your hands dirty. College is not a meal ticket, and I know plenty of people who did not go to college or who only received an associate's degree who make boatloads more money than I do, which does not bother me a bit (I like what I am doing despite not being paid much). Perhaps you should have gone to a vocational school instead, which would have given you a two year head start on graduates of four year colleges and which probably would have resulted in a higher salary for you.

Re:And the others..?

[fwarren]

It depends on the union, but the problem now is it is not sustainable. When I city has to pay a lifetime pension to a firefighter who only works for 20 years. So they guy works for 20 years max, maybe from 24 to 44. Then they pay the pension from the time to are 44 till the pass away at 80 or 90. There are places where for every working firefighter there are 3 drawing a pension. Yes. A city with a force of 20 fire fighters are paying for 80 fire fighters (60 of them retired).

That is not sustainable. There is a point where taxpayers can't pay any more. There is a point where a business is bleeding money because of these things. All of these workers have been promised things (via their contract) that both the company and the union knew were not sustainable. But it was a problem someone else would have to deal with in 40 years. Then a new contract was negotiated and it was a problem that would need to be dealt with in 30 years. Now it is a problem where the people who are currently negotiating are having to say "Hey, this is not sustainable, and it will FAIL on my watch."

I am sure there are business and industries so awash in money, or that currently pay their workers so poorly, that they should pay more, more pay, more benefits and more retirement. For the must part must business and government entities that have unionized employees are looking at major shortfalls in the funding of pensions and benefits for retired workers.

Re:And the others..?

[guanxi]

See, back in the Utopian day you speak of, union members were proud of their work and it was well known. You could expect on American cars to be the best, most reliable cars on the planet. An union constructed building would be one that you knew was not only up to code, but surpassed it. Union members were their own foreman and made sure that all union members were doing their jobs RIGHT.

That's not the case any more. Now you have union members standing around waiting for the union electrician to plug something into a wall socket. You have union members enter a "job bank" requesting a job that is not available in their area and sit around and nothing for years waiting for a job that no longer exists. Now you have union members who are completely incompetent, lazy and cocky because they know they can not get fired. Now you have people literally attacking, even shooting and vandalizing non-union shops and their own coworkers who don't join them. To make sure the operations continue, they want to make all union votes completely open, meaning union thugs may see how you voted to make sure you voted right. ..,. etc.

A nice bit of unsubstantiated spin and propaganda, copied and pasted from the talking points. Regardless, just substitute "management" for "union *" in the paragraphs above and you can see there's nothing unusual about unions.

What unions do is give workers the same power to protect their interests that management has, both at the workplace and in government. There is no doubt that human beings use power for both good and bad purposes, just like both unions and management do: Some are legitimate, like obtaining better compensation, working conditions, and preventing abuse like arbitrary firing. Some are cronyism, like giving jobs and business to friends and allies. Some are corrupt, like kickbacks. I'd like people to use power for better purposes, but the world of honest hard work that you describe never existed in the executive suites or on the shop floors/cubicles.

CEOs get their calls answered by Senators and Governors. Individual workers do not; but the head of the UAW does, and that is how their interests are represented.

Re:And the others..?

[ArcherB]

A nice bit of unsubstantiated spin and propaganda, copied and pasted from the talking points.

Copied and pasted? Wow! Whoever I copied and pasted that from really needs an editor.

No, sorry. Those thoughts are my very own. My sources are my experiences living in both Michigan, a strong union state where the unions have destroyed the industry there, and in Texas, a non-union state.

When I was in Michigan, I saw people whose whole job was to hold up a sign at construction sites saying, "Slow down. My daddy/mommy works here" who could have easily been replaced by a sign holding stand. But, instead, these people were making about $25/hr with full benefits that they didn't pitch in for. Their salaries were paid from my state and local income taxes as well as my state and local sales taxes combined with my state and local property taxes. Of course, I don't include any taxes on businesses there, which, as you know, are paid by the consumers, not the businesses. If you haven't noticed, the Michigan and the states around it are called "The Rust Belt" because so much industry has left, leaving large rusted out factories that have become a drain on the public and an eyesore to passer bys.

On the other hand, Texas is a non-union state. My pay here is about the same as I made in Michigan, except I don't have to pay state or local income taxes on it. my property taxes are bit higher but strangely enough, my sales tax is actually lower. Of course, the cost of living is much lower here because businesses are not taxed to death, making everything more affordable. Public employees make about the same as those in the midwest because they don't pay people to hold signs. Those savings mean that the guys with the shovels may be paid more and get better benefits. Sure, they have to pitch in a few bucks to help pay for it, but with no state income tax, they still end up ahead. See, without paying 100% benefits and for people to stand around and do nothing, the state may get by without income taxes. Even when these jobs are handled by private contractors, which most are, these contractors are able to make lower bids, saving the state money, and they are still able to pay their employees on par with their counterparts in the midwest. Like I said before though, since there is no union to siphon off the workers' pay and no state/local income taxes, the workers actually earn more spending power in Texas than in Michigan.

CEOs get their calls answered by Senators and Governors. Individual workers do not; but the head of the UAW does, and that is how their interests are represented.

Personally, I'd prefer my Senators and Governors stay out business, but since you brought it up, politicians don't get elected by union bosses and CEO's. They are elected by votes, and those come from the people. Also, Senators and Governors DO take calls from union bosses, but they don't take calls from the private contractor or the small business owner or the common consumer. Those are the people who are screwed over by the unions, not the CEO's.

Re:And the others..?

[nickmalthus]

And you believe corporation executives, who of course have employment contracts of their own, are any more benevolent towards the needs of society? If executives see first hand that the company is successful due in part to their contributions they certainly negotiate for better compensation. Why should non-executives behave differently? Unions have been on the decline over the past 30 years as well as average American wages. Perhaps you would prefer we emulate the more successful Chinese economic model where unions are illegal and dissidents are punished? Maybe unions would be less necessary if there were more competition to put downward pressure on profits and elevate wages. However, for a company such as verizon, who suckles off the government tit and enjoys monopoly status in many of it's service areas, unions are a sufficient check on corporate power.

Re:And the others..?

[Anonymous Coward]

He/She said that they didn't see Verizon et al as a cartel? Nope. Argument Fail.

Re:And the others..?

[nickmalthus]

Free trade agreements destroyed all the manufacturing jobs that the midwest depended upon whereas Texas has always had agricultural and natural resources to generate wealth from. If you leave the urban areas of Texas and enter the rural parts the economy is as bad there as it is anywhere else in the nation. Don't try to spin that the general economy and government revenues in Texas are so much better than the rest of the country due to corporate pandering. People who have lived in Texas longer than you know better.

Re:And the others..?

[guanxi]

Funny they are the same propaganda I hear from your political masters.

"Slow down. My daddy/mommy works here" who could have easily been replaced by a sign holding stand. But, instead, these people were making about $25/hr with full benefits that they didn't pitch in for. Their salaries were paid from my state and local income taxes as well as my state and local sales taxes combined with my state and local property taxes.

Do you really know anything about staffing construction crews? I have no idea what the staffing needs are, and I doubt you do either. You can make up whatever you want about benefits, but you'll have to substantiate your accusations (which don't make sense anyway -- benefits are part of compensation; you don't 'pitch in', you negotiate them). And of course our taxes pay for them; those are our roads -- who else should pay for them?

politicians don't get elected by union bosses and CEO's. They are elected by votes, and those come from the people.

There's something you should realize about our political system ...

they don't take calls from the private contractor or the small business owner or the common consumer. Those are the people who are screwed over by the unions, not the CEO's.

No, it's the corporations who pay their union employees, and they (or some of them) have conned you into taking their side in their personal fight through some pretty standard and obvious propaganda.

Unions benefit the common consumer, whose compensation, job security, and working conditions are often protected by unions, either directly (i.e., they are union members or unions negotiate on their behalf) or simply because unions share those goals and advocate for them.

Small businesses do lack influence, but that is relative to everyone. Taking away unions and leaving corporations and the wealthy with all the influence may be a goal of some political entities, but it's not a concern for small businesses.

Re:And the others..?

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to teachers getting, "paid to do jack shit waiting their union "trial" to make sure they really should be fired", you're right this is a big issue but understand where it came from. Not too many years ago (back in the 70's and early 80's) school districts would fire all their teachers before the summer break and then rehire them in the fall. It was done to keep costs down and so teachers would not earn seniority or the money that goes with seniority. Even now, in non-unionized districts teachers get fired at the whim of the principals. The Atalanta cheating scandal was directly related to the fact that teachers were being forced to cheat to raise test scores. Teachers who did not were humiliated and fired.

The fact is, these protections provided in contracts, fought for by the unions have come about as a response to serious problems by management. In an ideal world everyone would act decently and fairly and this notion of teachers sitting around pulling in pay checks while awaiting a hearing would not exist but the world is full on some pretty crappy people and we need laws to protect ourselves from them.

Re:Slashdot has never been a neutral reporter, but

[ravenshrike]

Not someone, his daughter, a minor. He was specifically banking on the driver of the vehicle being a better person than him.

Why "Redneck"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they were talking primarily about "New Jersey". Hardly, "Red Neck" territory. More like, "Mick" or "Ginny" territory.

Lets be sure to place the blame in the right place

[DaHat]

Obamacare... for just the same exact reason as I am losing my much loved health insurance plan as well.

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" my arse.

One-sided propaganda

[mvdwege]

TFA does not post any corroboration and nothing from the the side of the strikers.

Without further evidence, I'm going to write this article off as anti-union propaganda.

Mart

Re:One-sided propaganda

[magamiako1]

Like many of the people in these comments, apparently.

Re:One-sided propaganda

[mvdwege]

Are you blind? The majority of the comments at +1 or higher are Union-bashing, taking TFA entirely at face value.

Mart

Re:One-sided propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always this video

and this from the Boston Globe, starting about 30 seconds in.

But whatever.

Re:One-sided propaganda

[mvdwege]

Yeah, one parent who has his kid with him in the picket line. And that story is making the rounds as if this is the norm.

And that second video shows no violence, unless you think those poor managers are so traumatised from having a few signs shoved under their noses that they need counselling.

Wake up and smell the coffee. There is (so far) no proof of massive sabotage, like Verizon alleges, and all you can do is repeat the echo chamber.

Mart

Re:One-sided propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Sounds like paid posts that are purely anti-union propaganda.

Re:One-sided propaganda

[Falconhell]

Of course, we from the civilised world are by now used to the right wing nut job union thoeries coming form the US,
it just makes me laugh at the absoulute stupidity of the unoion bashers.

Re:One-sided propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm, can we down-mod a posting please...

Slanted Summary

[andrew_d_allen]

I don't normally find such slant in Slashdot summaries (except when it's pro-open-source, obviously, which is part of the reason I come here). Using the word "illegal" and "criminal" repeatedly to describe one side of a labor dispute is just beyond the journalistic pale. I know this is "citizen journalism", but it doesn't have to read like some anti-union blog.

Re:Slanted Summary

[cebarro]

The damage done was both criminal and illegal. And complete bullshit if it was done by striking union members.

Re:Slanted Summary

[perryizgr8]

ok so what you want is news that plays up any crimes committed by corporations, and be silent about criminal acts committed by union workers. glad we got that cleared up. enjoy your fucking distorted worldview.

Re:Slanted Summary

[ScentCone]

it doesn't have to read like some anti-union blog

Right on, Brother! This is slashdot, where the groupthink prefers all-anti-business-comments-all-the-time. Vitriolic hatred for people is supposed to be pointed only at those few people who risk money and time to start companies, hire people, and pay the vast majority of the country's income taxes. Those bastards! Only politically connected, thug-enforced lefty labor unions can be counted on to safely counter-balance those obnoxious people who actually provide the jobs in the first place.

Better now? Just trying to re-align this web site with your expectations.

Re:Slashdot has never been a neutral reporter, but

[Anonymous Coward]

> unthinking anti-union sentiment

Um... by definition unions are unthinking by their very nature... people who are either unwilling or unable to represent themselves (ie losers) band together and let others thing and negotiate for them.

I have never been a member of a labor union, nor will I ever... because I am competent enough to represent myself.

True, it's a "peasants are revolting" line to take

[dbIII]

How dare those underlings undermine the fine Feudal system that has taken over two centuries to be built over Washington's grave.

Relevance To Non-US Readers?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least from the article summary, this story does not seem to have any scientific/technological interest.

Re:Usually a double-game

[WorBlux]

Please, a citation so people can verify what you are saying, and or do more research if the topic interests them.

Evil Unions

[Hardhead_7]

Yeah, unions sure are evil! Thanks, Slashdot! Let's ignore instances of striking workers helping scabs to make sure they don't get hurt. (Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/19/1008575/-As-Verizon-uses-inexperienced-replacement-workers,-delays-mount). Let's also ignore that they're trying to cut their wages and benefits even as Verizon has experienced record profits.

Re:Evil Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

DailyKOS cite: Automatic FAIL.

Re:Usually a double-game

[sam_handelman]

Wikipedia has a very good article, actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_spies
  With many relevant sources.

  Or you could listen to the Governor of Wisconsin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tr6zX1Z6sI
  Although, in this case, he didn't actually do it.

Re:Usually a double-game

[magarity]

Historically, corporations have been found guilty of paying goons to join strikes and cause damage to the corporation, thus harming the union movement and themselves appearing to be innocent victims.

Sure, 100 years ago. So that makes it OK for unions to become the thugs now? I suppose the "european americans" need to pay reparations to "african americans" to make up for slavery, too?

Strike

[br00tus]

This is the worst the Verizon strike-busters could come up with? It perplexes me how many news stories I've read about how "one union picketer even went as far as to instruct his young daughter to stand in front of a Verizon truck to illegally block it". If you watch the video, HE stands in front of the moving truck, which stops. Then she walks over of her own accord. Then the instruction part comes in, he tells her to stand in front of the stopped truck alongside the cameraman who is obviously standing there as well in front of the stopped truck. She holds up her sign, the cameraman films. Then he goes over and yells at the scab who took his job for less than a minute. As happens every time, they then let the trucks go through.

Illegal is a great word. It is illegal to murder and rape. It is also illegal for me to loan one of my DVDs to a friend so that he can copy it to his computer. It is illegal to smoke marijuana. In virtually all industrialized countries but this one, what is illegal is for scabs to replace striking workers. In the good old, God-fearing, Libya-bombing, Iraq-bombing, Afghanistan-bombing USA though, it is illegal for workers to delay scabs from taking their jobs.

Verizon is one of the largest examples of a company which does nothing but profit from its monopolies. It spends tons of money on state and federal lobbying, and has a lock on a portion of wireless wavelength, and an almost total and complete lock on the local loop. The majority of its stock is held by the very wealthiest of Americans (over 40% is held by the wealthiest 1%, and the 51% mark is only slightly larger), and the majority of those people inherited virtually all of their wealth. The majority of the majority owners are heirs who sit on their asses and expropriate dividend checks from not their government-lobbied, government-granted near-monopolies, but the people in this video, the people out there doing all the work and creating all the wealth for the company.

I know the USA is a piece of garbage, ruled by these rich parasite heirs, aside from their religious wacko pals and other assorted asocial Tea Party nuts, so there's not much use getting over-exerted about any of this. The words criminal and illegal really mean nothing here. Before World War I, for workers to form a union in the USA was itself a criminal act. It was illegal. As I said, in other countries, these scabs replacing striking workers is illegal. In the good old USA workers replacing the scabs taking their jobs is illegal. Just like breaking DRM and all the other nonsense. We are all slaves to these rich parasite heirs trying to extract money from their monopolies and the wage slaves they have working for them. It's naturally American to be filled with vitriol and hatred for the average working class Joe standing with his union brothers to try and earn a living wage. Following authority, passively licking the boots of the lazy rich heirs who own the majority of Verizon stock, with Almighty God watching over all is the natural order of things. The reward will be in the "next life".

(and WRT to who references to who owns stocks, is an heir and such, you can consult sources like the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, Forbes 400 richest list and other sources).

Re:Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother. AND the problem is more than just Verizon. It's also countless other businesses around the country doing the same fucking thing. I work in an office and can get canned whenever my company feels like it. I'm the fucking slave, licking their boots every fucking day. Wage slavery, that's all it is. Barely making it paycheck to paycheck. While motherfuckers are getting driven to work in their Maybachs I am commuting in the piss and shit with all the other slaves who actually worked to pay for that fucking Maybach.

All these motherfuckers will get what's coming to them.

Re:Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the USA is a piece of garbage, ruled by these rich parasite heirs, aside from their religious wacko pals and other assorted asocial Tea Party nuts

Typical socialist BS. You think you're a slave to rich parasites? How 'bout you get off your lazy complaining ass and direct that misplaced energy toward working hard to break your "chains of slavery". Or because you feel entitled to a share of the wealth of another's fruits of labor would that be too stressful for you?

Re:Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

In the good old, God-fearing, Libya-bombing, Iraq-bombing, Afghanistan-bombing USA though, it is illegal for workers to delay scabs from taking their jobs.

As should be. If you don't like your job, its pay, or the conditions you work in, QUIT. But you shouldn't have the right to stop others from working.

Re:Strike

[equex]

Its also typical socialist to overthrow you psychos and rampage trough the remains of your ill gotten riches.

Re:Strike

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"and WRT to who references to who owns stocks, is an heir and such"

An increasing amount of college students, myself included, like to trade stocks on a daily basis. We are no where near a "trust-fund-kid" status. Let's not discriminate each other heh.

Re:Strike

[whoever57]

An increasing amount of college students, myself included, like to trade stocks on a daily basis. We are no where near a "trust-fund-kid" status.

Yes, but you and your fellow college students own an insignificant portion of the wealth in the USA.

Re:Strike

[sonicmerlin]

Why are Americans so intensely obsessed with groveling before wealthy masters? Are they all masochists? The libertarian morons who defend Verizon and mod the anti-union drivel make me despair at the state of the American psyche. Full of the stupidest morons that walk the earth. In many ways it's probably a good thing China will overtake the US within a decade and afterwards become the dominant superpower. The red necks, hicks, social isolationists, and religious cultists/libertarians who are intent on destroying everything and everyone around them all in the name of "purity" don't deserve the great things the true hard workers of this nation's past made possible.

Re:Strike

[sonicmerlin]

Yeah I'm sure the CEOs don't feel entitled to earning millions while driving corporations like HP into the ground.

Re:Strike

[butlerm]

it is illegal for workers to delay scabs from taking their jobs.

Their jobs? If you don't want to keep a job, not showing up for work is a great start. Now of course it is unfortunate that wealthy people own most of Verizon, but that is not the sort of problem that is going to be solved by demanding above market wages and benefits. You could run for Congress and promote a national property tax for example. Surely there are plenty of like minded people out there who would like to see the same thing.

Re:Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

copper fittings - copper fittings valves -safety valve , angle valv brass ball valves CHECK VALVE gas valve compression fitting manifold push-fit fittings ecommerce.

Re:Strike

[kenh]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the Bilderbergers out of your post...

The "scabs" are mostly fellow Verizon employees, that is how Verizon and other large emplyers cope when the union employees choose to picket.

Re:Strike

[Comen]

Well said! I think its really sad you can not mention a union or the idea of a union anymore in the US without someone telling you how thier Dad or Grandfather says they are the devil. My grandfather worked hard in a factory his who life and told me nothing but that it was the unions that gave us a middle class and finally made companies pay a decent wage. But somehow I think the companies figured out how to fight the unions, make them look bad, they will force you to join them and make more money. After all a union is just a group of workers that join together to fight for their rights, because everyone knows a company will fire anyone that stands up for themselves in fear it will grow to the rest. So make them all look liek the Mofia runs them all, because we all know there could never be a good union made up of workers that just want to stick up for themselves, they must ALL be evil.

Re:Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

In virtually all industrialized countries but this one, what is illegal is for scabs to replace striking workers.

Which is crazy. When you walk out of your job and go on strike, you are risking losing that job. That is why the strike is a powerful statement, you are saying "We are so fed up with our employer that we are willing to stand here and dare him to try to replace us." There is absolutely NOTHING morally wrong with the boss just firing all of the strikers and hiring other people who want those jobs.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know of any corporations that have been caught doing this lately, but Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was caught on tape saying he thought about planting troublemakers, but decided against it only because he thought it might help the other side. (No mention of immorality, or illegality of course)

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_40c3dfbe-402c-11e0-8c68-001cc4c002e0.html

Re:Usually a double-game

[DNS-and-BIND]

Oh, so *that's* what happened in Wisconsin! Jeez, now I understand all the videos of dissenters getting the shit kicked out of them by "union" thugs. They were hired by the governor and his mafia allies!

Re:Usually a double-game

[similar_name]

Looking around I came across this. It at least used to happen, whether is still does, I can't say either way. From Wikipedia

"...However, these tactics may not be good, and the union spirit may be so strong that a big organization cannot be prevented. In this case our man turns extremely radical. He asks for unreasonable things and keeps the union embroiled in trouble. If a strike comes, he will be the loudest man in the bunch, and will counsel violence and get somebody in trouble. The result will be that the union will be broken up."

Re:Usually a double-game

[roman_mir]

When GM was bailed out the bond holders got screwed, investors got screwed, they lost all of the money, so who won in that deal?

Union workers got their victory. It was a bail out to the union workers and all of the private debt of the failed company was put onto the shoulders of tax payers, because now they own this company, which is going to fail again.

Obama also appeals to GM drivers that their warranty will be made whole by the government, so now not only the unions got bailed out, but GM drivers are also bailed out, again, with more tax payer money.

Of-course GM drivers are also tax payers, but Honda drivers are not covered by this GM warranty.

Now Ford union is threatening to strike and they don't care if the company goes bankrupt now, that they saw GM and Chrysler bail outs (moral hazard).

Not only did Ford get the short end of the stick when its competitors - GM and Chrysler were bailed out, but now the moral hazard created by the bail outs can cause Ford to be destroyed if it gives the unions what they want or it can be destroyed by the union itself, which now believes that even if the company goes bankrupt, it will be bailed out.

--

This is how this game is played now if you are an investor: fuck you.

If you are in a large politically connected union, you are bailed out.

If you are American tax payer: fuck you too. You are now the proud owner of these failed businesses with all these insane obligations to the unions, whether you like it or not.

Re:Slashdot has never been a neutral reporter, but

[grumling]

You know that most CEOs have agents who negotiate for them? If unions would just worry about income for their clients, and not get involved in all the other bullshit, I'd actually be much more willing to be in one.

and historically it is more union members

[Shivetya]

who do the actual damage. Unions also hire protestors as well, usually not paying them but a little over minimum wage and never extending them benefits.

Sorry, btdt, have many relatives who have been or still are in unions and the shit they talk about (a few boast) would make you wonder if they ever graduated high school.

Re:and historically it is more union members

[Bengie]

At my dad's work, everyone one knows this one guy who is in the union and he typically punches in for work, leaves to the local bar for an hour or so, gets drunk, comes back to work.

When he was caught, he was immediately fired, then the union fought for him and won. He still has his job and no one wants to work with him because he's always drunk.

One personal anecdote.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a 1913 account..."

How about something from THIS century??

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the point is that history repeats itself more often than not..

Re:Slashdot has never been a neutral reporter, but

[mjtaylor24601]

"Um... by definition [corporations] are unthinking by their very nature... people who are either unwilling or unable to represent themselves (ie [shareholders]) band together and let others ([CEOs]) think and negotiate for them.

I have never been a [corporate stock holder], nor will I ever... because I am competent enough to represent myself.

Not that I have a particular opinion on the Verizon strike specifically, but why is collective action of capital holders the pinnacle of the modern economic system, but the collective action of laborers is destroying society as we know it?

Re:Usually a double-game

[SomeKDEUser]

Yes we all know contracts are valid only when they benefit the rich people. Divinity forbid that the corporations be held to the contracts they signed with the workers.

Basically, if you think you cannot afford a certain level of salary/benefits, don't hire the workers. If you do, you are responsible -- to your eventual bankruptcy -- for upholding your part of the bargain. If you cannot hire anyone at the miserly salaries you are proposing, rethink you business.

Re:Usually a double-game

[roman_mir]

Basically, if you think you cannot afford a certain level of salary/benefits, don't hire the workers. If you do, you are responsible -- to your eventual bankruptcy -- for upholding your part of the bargain. If you cannot hire anyone at the miserly salaries you are proposing, rethink you business.

- you are arguing my case.

Where do you think the jobs are going in this regulated market, which is skewed in favor of labor, because there are many employees, who are a majority voting block, while the employers are a tiny minority?

Of-course you are wrong on this, there is no Constitutional authority of any kind to for Congress to pass labor laws, but they don't care. The proof is in the pudding - the jobs are leaving.

There should be no labor regulations of any kind at all nor any business regulations, nor income/payroll/corporate taxes, nor subsidies and corporate welfare or personal welfare for that matter. All of the above is unconstitutional and it's not just an homage to the old age, it's wisdom - once government gets into business, some business gets into government and then the government business is the only business around and it's your government.

The tax payers/customers/competitors are all screwed in this game, but eventually it's the entire economy and the country that's screwed.

At least 18% of US population is unemployed or underemployed and your position on it is this:

If you cannot hire anyone at the miserly salaries you are proposing, rethink you business.

Guess what. People ARE rethinking it, that's why it's all in China.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[BenoitRen]

Corporations are greedy and don't want to pay more for health care coverage than they like. Business as usual. Don't blame better health care coverage law for that.

A small insight into the decline of the US

[Anonymous Coward]

These anti-union comments are pretty telling.

It's true that unions aren't perfect, far from it. Nonetheless, they are the best and only defense that the average low and middle class person has against discrimination, abuse, exploitation and harassment in the workplace, not to mention the only instrument available that provides the kind of bargaining power that can keep the vast majority of American workers from sliding into poverty and slave wages.

If you're a wealthy industrialist or CEO of a multinational then it makes sense to be anti-union and it makes sense that you should wield your influence over politicians to destroy them.

For everyone else, it's sheer lunacy. Why do vast numbers of Americans take positions that are in direct opposition to their own well-being?

Re:A small insight into the decline of the US

[Nidi62]

Nonetheless, they are the best and only defense that the average low and middle class person has against discrimination, abuse, exploitation and harassment in the workplace,

Yes, we should all give up one source of harassment, abuse, exploitation, and discrimination for another. All unions these days care about are themselves. Not the customers, not the company, not the other employees, hell, not even the union members much anymore. All they care about is making sure that they continue to exist. Unions have large income streams through forced participation(have to pay dues even if you dont want to be a member/be represented)and lots of political influence. Union leadership pulls in salaries much greater than those they claim to represent, just like corporate executives. They don't want to lose their power and money any more than executive boardrooms do, and are just as heartless and cutthroat as executives when it is threatened.

Re:A small insight into the decline of the US

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been known for a long time how to destroy organizations from within; it only takes a few powerful people clever enough to use that information.

Yes, I speak of conspiracy; something which has been taboo in this country thanks to decades of propaganda. More than 1 person can never be accused of organized immoral or criminal acts (unless you are prosecuted, the legal system still frequently uses criminal conspiracy law. That and racketeering are largely ineffective at addressing the modern forms of what they were written to fight.)

I know a local GOP man who was rather big at the state level; he plotted out conspiracies all the time and justified them by saying the DFL was doing it -- or so he believed-- truth is they were not even close to the level of work he did; and such kinds of things lacked support. Our school system is being purposely destroyed from within and that is their plan because they want to privatize it all and the only way to get public support is to make it into a disaster so people hate it. The damage caused is completely justified because their ideals will win long term (they totally think that we can rebound quickly on their ideals when fully implemented!) I actually find it similar to the communists of the USSR whose FAITH in their system was going to be vindicated after enough people suffered transition. It is always a fight for the greater good towards some Utopia. The level of conviction is there; as it was in the nazis its the same sickness also found in religious fanatics-- it is in fact a religion itself; its a baseless belief in something beyond reality that is simply true without proof-- a supernatural ideal instead of a supernatural being/force/god that just is simply true. ok, now I've lost most of you... forget the connections I'm making if you don't like them. Instead fall back to the true part--- there are political forces thinking beyond the simple presentations and more like the FBI when they send an agent into a group of old women against the iraq war... Except that these guys are NOT thinking of finding terrorists or criminals (you just hear about the old women groups because its so stupid) their purpose is to gather information and undermine from within. They do plant people in the DFL and worry about the DFL doing it to them-- except they are way more organized and the DFL from what I've seen is a mess (and proud of their mess.)

There is an old gov plan (FBI I believe) by the racists back in the day to undermine the black equality movement by wrecking their communities from within -- it is true, go find it-- naturally, they never acted on this plan... but then would they admit it??? they'd probably not admit it back when it was more acceptable; today-- forget it! Today it looks more like somebody read it or devised something similar and implemented it... FACT is the plan was thought of and documented and even declassified. It is not a freak incident; it is only unusual in that it caught the light of day. PRIVATE entities can do this stuff, especially the corporations who are so much more powerful today-- P.R. firms conspire with crooks in congress to delay and FUD science on smoking and that is only partially known at this point. The AMA (doctors) was conducting human experiments without permission on black people all the way up to the 60s-- and that is a just a pro organization without the powers of many others out there. No, this stuff can't happen-- conspiracy is impossible... they can't be proven... well do they exist and smaller ones even get prosecuted and they have been proven-- but only if investigated not if people dismiss it as crazy talk (its still really hard to prove even when you investigate-- the larger the conspiracy the tougher it is and the more distributed it is, so fewer people know of the big picture.) There is plenty of science in the area. See the Milgram experiment for beginners.
sorry off topic, I just find that one can't even begin to talk about what really goes on because people are so clueless. Its like 1984, t

Re:A small insight into the decline of the US

[shutdown -p now]

Unions, as a concept, are evil - they do limit the individual freedom of their members and even non-members - but sometimes they are a lesser and necessary evil. If you look at history, the time at which unions appeared was the time of "peak laissez-faire" - when government was loathe to regulate the market, causing the inevitable rise of the monopolies, and a buyer's market when it came to jobs. Collective bargaining then was the only available effective means for the workers to have their say as a group, even if at times it could be against individual interests of some people in that group. This is not akin to how even democratic states often suspend liberties at a time of armed conflict - surely e.g. military conscription and martial law are also evil, but if that's what it takes to win a just war, then that's what you do.

The important thing, however, is that strikes and such were always only temporary measures - they can keep big business in check for a short time, but eventually the cycle will repeat. To break the cycle, you need a change on a higher level - that of the state itself, not a single company or even a single industry. That means government regulation of labor practices and markets in general. And unions of old were very active in politics: just consider the fact that most parties with "labor" in their name - which in many countries today are ruling parties! - were formed in the period when unions first became a major political force, and with their active participation.

Once you have social welfare state and properly regulated market, the need for unions greatly diminishes. The problem is getting there. In US, it means, for starters, not supporting either of the rightist "big business" parties (i.e. neither D nor R). Yet last I checked unions overwhelmingly support Dems, as a "lesser evil" kind of thing. That is a pointless tactic. Where is US Labor Party?

Re:A small insight into the decline of the US

[Falconhell]

Probaly because they are brainwashed to believe that there is a left wing in US politics, when in fact there is right wing (D)
and far right loonie(R)

Re:Slashdot has never been a neutral reporter, but

[SomeKDEUser]

It is interesting that you simultaneously think that it is fine that people form corporations so they have a limited liability in their investments, but not unions, to have bargaining power much larger than you could ever have, however competent you may be.

The Cell Tower is connected to the Land Line

[Anonymous Coward]

The cell tower is connected to the land line
The land line is connected to the backbone
The backbone's connected to the network
And they carry your mobile call!

Verizon should know that since I've seen the way greedy politicians and corporations are trying to destroy unions I WILL NOT CROSS A PICKET LINE.

Solidarity! United we stand. Divided we fall.

They've got the watts but we've got the power.

Re:Usually a double-game

[SomeKDEUser]

Jobs in Germany are much more protected than in the US, working class salaries are much higher, and the effective benefits incomparable. France has a different tradeoff with more free time, but they are also doing OK. It is the absence of socialised medicine, and the dismal infrastructure which kills the jobs in the US. Oh, and the tendency to hire psychopaths as CEOs.

Go Unions

[Osgeld]

For the last 2 weeks you have been making a total ass out of yourselves, making threats to innocent people, damaging property and for what? Oh so you can weasel out of paying for any health insurance on the people you extort

Well I hope you got your day off on your birthday, I will be avoiding you fucking psychopaths, I wont pay for you to burn my communications.

Statistics

[Atmchicago]

Doonesbury provides a simple statistic: http://doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/08/21.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[Osgeld]

you have a health insurance plan? our company makes ours so fucking worthless and so fucking expensive you have to be retarded to sign up for it.

Dont get all political, you loosing your health care cause your company is too much of a cheap whore, and could not give 2 fucks about weather you live or die. its been like this for a decade, make it so useless and expensive we dont have to pay anything = more profit for the board for wipe their ass on

Re:Usually a double-game

[roman_mir]

I am in Germany right now, and from speaking to people who actually are working here I understand that none of them want to deal with any unions. Are the jobs protected in Germany? Well sure, they are protected. For example the farms are subsidized. But what good is it for the market if Germans are generally speaking so much poorer than American counterparts? And they are poorer, they don't get to buy on credit like the US consumers, they don't get liar's loans like FHA and Freddie/Fannie was providing. They get more vacation time, but that comes at the expense of their salaries being actually quite low. Germans are mostly poor and it's getting worse with every new printed Euro that the European banks are bailed out with. But the economy in Germany is still going not because of unions, but because the salaries are getting lower as so much cheap immigrant labor was brought into the country from much poorer places in Eastern Europe and other places, like Turkey.

Again, when you talk about 'free time' in France, you are talking about lower salaries, because when you negotiate your salary it doesn't really matter how it's paid - in more cash or in more paid vacation time. It's not like the French have very high salaries and they get paid vacation. They have salaries that are commensurate with their vacation time.

  Is France really doing OK though? Well, we are going to see how things unfold with all the government cuts that must happen. I just came from London (damn you, UK, I always get sick when I go there), and the riots that are happening in that country are a sign of the spending cuts into various welfare programs that were enacted past WWII. However it's a good sign - a sign of a country that is undergoing some form of change.

Of-course if the spending cuts are not followed by tax cuts then it's all for nothing and will not help the ailing British economy.

But I did go through Zurich on the way back, and the differences are obvious: the country has extremely low unemployment, very high export rates and very strong currency, which blows the minds of Keynesians out - what a paradox it must be for their Keynesian little heads. A strong currency and strong export numbers and low unemployment? Impossible, I tell you!

In USA though there are no riots on the streets yet, and this means that there are no austerity measures. There are no cuts, nobody feels any pain yet. Of-course the longer this blissful ignorance continues, the worse the rude awakening will expect Americans, as all of a sudden they will be cut off the drugs of free money they still are enjoying, and all of the cheap Chinese and other goods are going to be out of reach of most most Americans, regardless how many dollars they are holding.

I expect that the pawnshop businesses are booming, growing in US declining economy, as there is a huge repossession taking place - with US consumers unable to pay for anything but having all sorts of goods stuck in their homes and basements, while the Chinese and others have actual legitimate savings and very few goods.

The outflow of used products and raw materials/energy carriers from USA will become more and more pronounced, as the US consumers can no longer afford any of it, as vendor financed consumption comes to an end and they won't have the money to buy basics - like food and energy.

And all of these labor regulations, minimum wage laws, subsidies to businesses, corporate welfare, business regulations and various taxes that are applied to work are making sure that the capital flows out of USA much faster and the jobs are disappearing, and thus the US consumer is no longer a legitimate one, consuming over 53 billion USD/month more than he is producing.

Did I miss the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that unions were about tapping the collective bargaining power of a group of skilled workers.

Why does it always seem to be about road blocks, denying entry of 'scab' workers, violence done to others, intimidation and fear, industrial sabotage, verbal threats, etc.

Perhaps I'm biased, growing up in chicago, but it always seems that the unions represent themselves as brute thugs. Either this by choice, or a lack of negotiation leverage, due to lack of skill and having only easily replaceable employees. Either way, this doesn't raise much sympathy in me.

Re:Did I miss the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tens of thousands of times a union keeps a boss from firing an employee because that employee didn't kiss up, or because the employee wanted to follow safety protocol, or because the employee had a sick child who needed to go to the doctors, well, they don't merit coverage in the news.

Does that seem strange to you?

Maybe it's coverage, maybe it's just not interesting when workers actually get what they want without conflict.

But if you need a clue, then ask yourself what you feel about taking up arms...is that righteous, or wrongful? It doesn't take much reading of the editorial comments in this article to realize how one-sided it is. For some people, it may provoke outrage at those nasty unions, but for others, it might produce the effect of highlighting exactly why such bias in reporting is a bad thing.

So...who needs your sympathy? I'd rather you raise your perceptive skills.

His daughter???

[shoehornjob]

One union picketer even went as far as to instruct his young daughter to stand in front of a Verizon truck to illegally block it from coming back to a Verizon work center in New Jersey.

A$$holes like this give the unions a bad name. All that other crap they pulled doesn't help either. If he believes in his cause so much they he should lay down in front of the truck. Those are big trucks and if the driver did not see her she might have been injured or worse. This guy deserves a beating for being such a d!ck.

Re:His daughter???

[Anonymous Coward]

If he believes in his cause so much they he should lay down in front of the truck.

He did. Well, stood in front of the truck to make it stop. Once it stopped, the daughter came to join him in front of the truck on her own. Then he went and yelled at the driver for a minute. After that, the truck drove on.

Re:His daughter???

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he were a good father he would have told his daughter to get back out of the way of the truck. Or not have brought her to the strike to begin with.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically, corporations have been found guilty of paying goons to join strikes and cause damage to the corporation, thus harming the union movement and themselves appearing to be innocent victims.

Sure, 100 years ago. So that makes it OK for unions to become the thugs now? I suppose the "european americans" need to pay reparations to "african americans" to make up for slavery, too?

That was the loudest damned "whoosh" sound I've ever heard.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Salary is not a "benefit"

[SuperKendall]

As per your post verizon was trying to reduce the benefits (salaries+pension+health care) of their employees. I realise you are a libertarian, and therefore are arithmetically impaired

I'm a libertarian, but I'm smart enough to be able to add two numbers together - and also realize which ones to add, unlike yourself. Salary is NOT a "benefit", those are separate items. For benefits you're really adding just pensions and health care, which yes the workers would have to pay a little more for - but that's not a decrease to what Verizon is paying at all. And it's not a decrease to worker benefits, they'll get the same level of health care...

In fact, going on to the Pension side of the equation - did you miss the part where in the transition to 401k from the traditional pension Verizon would be contributing MORE? For someone so snottily lecturing on addition, you really need to make sure you're adding EVERYTHING.

But frankly the fact is wired phone systems are a thing that is dying, and these workers have to realize that the whole system is going to be wound down to some extent over the next decade or two. Verizion is making less and less money from this, the workers cannot expect increases from that business.

Re:Salary is not a "benefit"

[SomeKDEUser]

guarantied income always trumps guarantied contribution. It is always in the advantage of the employer...

Re:Salary is not a "benefit"

[roman_mir]

Who is going to guarantee anything? Can you guarantee me anything? Can anybody guarantee that Verizon will stay in business at all 1 year from now? I think it will go out of business within a year, but it may get government bail out money, they already showed the propensity to bail out failed businesses, so why stop at banks and auto companies? They'll bail out States and municipalities, all of those have their obligations they can't meet either.

What is this magic that must guarantee anything? "Too big to fail" is Too Big to Exist and it's nonsense.

With every new bail out, with every new gov't deal there will be fewer and fewer jobs left in America, unions or no.

Re:Salary is not a "benefit"

[SomeKDEUser]

The point is this: you as an employee wishes to have a guarantied income pension plan. You as an employer wish only to offer (provided you need to hire) only a guarantied contribution.

Of course, nothing is certain, and if the employee picked a company that goes out of business, well, they were a moron. However, if they pick an IBM, then they win.

But maybe you think risk should not be rewarded?

Re:Salary is not a "benefit"

[roman_mir]

you as an employee wishes to have a guarantied income pension plan.

- it's quite peculiar, why would anybody think that they can have a 'guaranteed income pension plan' from a company? The days of people working for companies for their entire lives are over anyway, so even from that perspective it makes no sense, but if you believe you need a pension plan, why would you do such a stupid thing as to rely on government or your employer to provide you with one? This makes no sense.

What you do is you get the biggest hourly wage you can and then save some of the money and invest it yourself. That's your pension plan. How you invest it can be different from person to person, some would want to start their own business with the saved money and some would invest into other businesses via things like dividend paying stocks.

But then somebody like you will about, when such an investment is made into GM and then GM would fail and government would bail GM unions out and screw the bond holders/investors, and you'd say: you don't deserve to be paid first out of the bankruptcy asset liquidation, even though that's the established common law for over 150 years now at least in USA.

Of course, nothing is certain, and if the employee picked a company that goes out of business, well, they were a moron

- really? That's your answer? How about all of the contractors, who never ask for any pension plans in the first place?

An employee doesn't have to be stuck with a worthless pension plan just because his company folds, you see? That's where all of your ideology falls apart. What the employee needs is to be paid the maximum that the market provides for him. Then employee can apportion some of the money to his own pension plan and it shouldn't matter at all that the company folded.

Same problem by the way exists with health insurance in USA - employees should buy their own and not rely on employers to provide it for them. But the prices are so high specifically because gov't creates the moral hazard and pours money into insurance, so now it's not about how much an individual can afford, but what government can afford, and government just borrows and prints, so there is no limit to how high the prices can go.

Private health insurance in USA used to be extremely cheap and very good prior to Medicare and Medicaid.

People used to have savings and investments prior to SS.

Today people are made into slaves of the system, and they expect to be taken care of, but of-course the system is failing them because the system is completely broken and the reason for it is total disregard to the US Constitution.

But maybe you think risk should not be rewarded?

- I don't understand how this follows, but let me make something clear to you:

There is nothing that says that risk MUST be rewarded. You can take all sorts of risks and you can fail miserably, how does it follow that risk must be rewarded? You can go driving and you can die while doing that, was the risk worth it?

So should risk be rewarded? It's a silly question. Risk can be rewarded handsomely if you are risking the right thing and doing the right thing that's risky.

Re:Salary is not a "benefit"

[Falconhell]

I find it very hard to believe that any libertarian could sucessfully add up 2 numbers.

Reductions

[SuperKendall]

The cell tower is connected to the land line

So to serve a few million people there are how many cell towers, compared to land-lines for every house there traditionally were...

Big cuts are coming.

Warning: equal opportunity biggot

[microbox]

No and no.

Unions should not be thugs now -- and the GP's point was that Verizon's management may not be beyond a "false-flag" operation.

As for the equal-opportunity bigottory: "european americans" and "african americans" should both take steps to make sure institutionalised oppression is lessened over time. If you have no heart, then do it for pragmatic reasons.

Wild speculation

[microbox]

Why should the union benefit from non-union labor's productivity?

And precisely /how/ do you know that the profit is from non-union labor productivity? A wild guess? Thought so.

Re:Wild speculation

[lee1026]

As Verizon Wireless is legally a separate company, they report finances independently.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[microbox]

I am sure you will not get your healthcare plan back if Obamacare is repealed. I will not shed a tear for you if you vote Republican.

"Wireline Business" == "Phone Line Business"

[fbartho]

The union in question is striking within a declining business. How will the union protect their jobs when phonelines get phased out completely? Of course most people are switching to VOIP and Wireless. Wireless plans are comparatively even less of a ripoff than phones. That's saying something. VOIP beats 90% of the usecases and features of regular phonelines at a much lower maintenance cost. What do these union people think they will get? They have to sabotage, because if they don't people might just not care that their plain-old-telephony lines aren't working...

Re:"Wireline Business" == "Phone Line Business"

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusingly, throughout the whole thread about this story, whenever anyone brings up your point (the union is part of wireline) virtually no one replies.

No grandiose arguments or anything, just ... silence.

It is not a criminal act to run a business

[SuperKendall]

Corporations committing criminal acts in order to make a profit.

In what way is Verizon committing a criminal act? They are simply trying to run a business, that earns a profit, so they can keep running and expand the business.

The fact that unions are complaining because certain segments of the workforce are declining in demand and then as a result hurting PEOPLE not Verizon shows how bonkers some union members have become. I'm sure there are some union members who would not endanger people but they need to also be trying to calm down the union members that are going over the top.

If i ran verizon

[nurb432]

I would have closed down shop due to acts like this. Collective bargaining is a good thing and should be encouraged. Acts of intimidation from either side are not and there should be *severe* consequences.

This is not the 'old days' where this sort of behavior was common practice between unions and 'management' when people 'turned the other cheek'. This is 2011 and should not be tolerated, at all.

Re:If i ran verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you're not running Verizon then, because if you did shut down those land-line operations you'd run afoul of many contracts and agreements with local governments who granted your company a profitable franchise (ok, so it was probably really a company that Verizon either bought out or got bought by, that's details) to run the local phone system.

Getting into whether or not your interpretation of events is based on an accurate representation isn't worthwhile, if Verizon did as you suggested, they'd be criminals.

Counterpoint

[SuperKendall]

In the same video, you ALSO have someone saying repeatedly "Well if what it takes for us to get back to work is for someone to get hurt, then so be it". You can easily see how that same sentiment on the part of SOME (not all) union workers leads to things like cutting phone lines on purpose...

The problem is that the workers are being as ill-served by the union as they are anyone. The union is fighting for something no longer possible, instead of working with the business to figure out a better plan for transitioning in tough times.

Don't you understand things change?

[SuperKendall]

The problem is health care costs are going up, substantially. Verizon cannot shoulder all of it, so they are asking for workers to pay some as well. Verizon cannot afford to give the equivalent of a 10-20% raise to everyone, especially in a bad economy for a field that is losing a lot of customers (wireline access).

The fact is, things change, and the workers cannot be expected to be insulated from all changes. Or at least non-union workers cannot.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[Steven_M_Campbell]

The change you speak of here is artificial. Why is it it costs so much more per person for health care in the US. I can tell you why, I just paid $1600 for two prescriptions that certainly don't cast that much to make, not even close. But, because no one stops them they charge what they want. Our government should not be paying these outrageous prices for our peoples health and neither should we. Regulate the drug companies and droves of "medical equipment" manufacturers that are profiteering on peoples pain, bring those costs down in line with at least the rest of world (we can do far better). That's where to get the money back, not by killing the poor and making medicine in the US elitist.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[cdrguru]

You do understand that today drug prices in the US are making up for the discounts outside the US, right?
The reason the drug companies are still taking the huge risks they are is because in the US they get to make their money back. The rest of the world is pretty much just riding along because of the profits made in the US.

Sure, the US government could mandate drug pricing as is done in most of the rest of the world. The response would be quite simple - the government would have to be in the drug business because it would be pretty unrewarding. Yes, a lot of research is today paid by the government or other public institutions, but no public institution is doing drug testing - you know, the ten years or so of trials that are needed for FDA approval. The FDA would pretty much have to take that over.

Also, a huge component of health care costs today is the cost-shifting from Medicare and Medicaid. When the government pays 15% of the going rate for care the other 85% is going to be put somewhere. It isn't just that the government gets a big discount. So expanding Medicaid to cover more and more people means more and more cost shifting. Your $1600 prescriptions might have only cost $800 a few years ago but with someone on Medicaid getting it for $25 means someone else is going to make up the difference. Easy to outlaw cost shifting, but what would happen then? Same thing that has happened with vaccine manufacturers - they all quit.

The first thing to understand about US health care is that it is all about old people, who today are mostly on cost-shifted Medicare. Yes, nearly all the money spent on health care (like 90%) is for old people. This is very different from any other country on the planet. All we need to do is stop spending 90% of the health care money on old people and there will be plenty for everyone and health care will be back to reasonable prices. But it seems nobody wants to tell the old people about that kind of a plan. Yet.

Obamacare is a complete government takeover of health care, whether they understand it or not. When every single employer understands they can pay $10,000 per employee for health insurance or they can pay a $2000 fine per employee (or less), they are going to choose to pay the fine. This puts the entire load onto the government for everyone and the plan will no longer be revenue-neutral - the cost will be in the trillions. The only way to make it affordable, even for the government, is to kick old people out of the system and stop spending 90% on old people. Bring it down to 20-30% like everywhere else and we can have government-funded health care for everyone without even raising any taxes.

But someone has to tell the old people about the new plan.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[The Dawn Of Time]

No, the change here is that these are wireline workers, and the wireline business is collapsing, but they want to be compensated like it's still the king shit on the poop-pile.

Times have changed, but unions seem to try to fight to keep that from happening. As always, the universe laughs.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[bjourne]

Um.. Verizon's owners take home several billions quarterly in profits. They should be able to afford not to cut their employees compensation.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[theshiznojudge]

SHHHHHH

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[GateGuy]

And the associates are rewarded by that profit directly in two ways.

First, if they contribute to their 401K, the company match is in Verizon stock equivalent. Once each quarter, the dividend is paid directly to the associate's 401K as additional Verizon stock equivalent.

Secondly, each spring, every associate received a corporate profit sharing award.

Affording, has zero to do with it.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[sonicmerlin]

Verizon is experiencing record profits. Can't shoulder it? Why are you a sociopathic liar? That's what my mind can't shoulder.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[sonicmerlin]

u do understand that today drug prices in the US are making up for the discounts outside the US, right? The reason the drug companies are still taking the huge risks they are is because in the US they get to make their money back. The rest of the world is pretty much just riding along because of the profits made in the US.

This is a common lie repeated ad nauseam during the healthcare debates. Only on slashdot would such tripe be modded up. But you know it's a lie. In fact I'm fairly certain you were involved in those same debates and people called you out numerous times. I'm not sure what psychosis you have to ignore the truth and spout the same garbage over and over again.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Verizon is experiencing record profits.

A quick google shows that Verizon has a profit margin of 5.84%.

Gas and Electric utilities are running about 8.7%

The industry average for railroads is 12.6%.

Companies that make networking equipment run about 20.4%

I fail to see how 6% profit margin is so horrendously high as all that...

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about their profit margins?

The term "record profits" may be referring to simple dollar values, rather than the margin you wish to express.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[guruevi]

I used to live in a first world country where $2000/year funded an entire year of non-government health care. I don't think you understand how much insurance companies are fleecing you now until you see how much they actually don't pay out.

My US employer now gives out ~$12,000 for my health insurance and I pay ~$3000 on top of that from my salary. My wife went into the hospital (which is run by my employer by the way) for 2 days, the bill was $7000, the insurance company made me pay 20% of it in copay and they sent me a letter that besides what I payed, they 'agreed' to pay the hospital $700 extra for all services rendered and the rest gets picked up by the state.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[operagost]

I just paid $1600 for two prescriptions that certainly don't cast that much to make, not even close. But, because no one stops them they charge what they want.

It's called R&D. And when the patents expire, the generics appear and the free market forces stop them from charging what they want. Should the patents be shorter? I'd be willing to talk about that. But we'd have to make sure there's enough time for the companies to make a profit after they go thorough all the research, testing, and FDA approval costs.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[s73v3r]

Or at least non-union workers cannot.

Because none of them are willing to fight those changes. Quit blaming unions when the problem is obviously your lack of balls to stand up.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[s73v3r]

Your entire post is full of unsubstantiated bullshit.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[s73v3r]

But we'd have to make sure there's enough time for the companies to make a profit after they go thorough all the research, testing, and FDA approval costs.

They already make that and more. You want to get their costs down? Go back to the days when they couldn't advertise directly to consumers. Just about every big drug maker in the US spends far more on marketing than they actually do on R&D.

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[x6060]

Its just like how everyone complains about oil companies shoulder all the blame for every price increase in gas and how they are all so horribly rich when their profit margin on gasoline is less than 4%. By the way, the taxes on gasoline are roughly 40-60 cents a gallon on average in the US. The US government makes 3-4 times the amount of money on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do. =\

Re:Don't you understand things change?

[sonicmerlin]

Few things you need to understand. Wireless is different from wireline. Wireless experiences 40%+ profit margins, but is temporarily depressed due to Verizon's expansive massive LTE buildout. Wireline has lower ROI, which is why Verizon has sold off so many of their lines, but it's still a huge revenue and profit generator.

Describing who again?

[SuperKendall]

While your salary and pension are pissed away so that a few well connected assholes from rich famiilies can get richer.

I couldn't summarize union leaders any better if I tried.

Re:Describing who again?

[graveyhead]

Herp derp derp! Union leaders are ELECTED BY THE MEMBERS. BlackTriangle is talking about the BILLION DOLLARS (that's 50,000 workers times $20,000 ea) that Verizon was trying to shift to the executive class. Moron.

Re:Describing who again?

[SuperKendall]

Herp derp derp! Union leaders are ELECTED BY THE MEMBERS.

And that as kept U.S. political leaders clean from all corruption.

What a rube!!

There was no "shift to the executive class",Verizon was trying to not give everyone an equivalent of a 10-20% raise which is how much fully funding the rising cost of healthcare plans would cost them - all for a business unit which is rapidly dying on the vine.

Re:Describing who again?

[Eskarel]

Well of course if we had a single payer system, businesses wouldn't need to absorb the 10-20% increase in costs, and the 10-20% increases in cost wouldn't actually be happening, and for that matter costs would be substantially lower, but that would be socialist, never mind that private businesses would be much better off.

The last exhale

[Steven_M_Campbell]

It sounds too damn much like freedom's last exhale to me. Now everyone back to their huts... we'll be turning the sun off for the night.

Punishment???

[SuperKendall]

Yeah, and the workers were punished for it: every day on strike was matched by a day without pay.

So if I hit myself in the head that's "punishment"?

Self abuse is not punishment. Not getting paid because you didn't work is expected - not punishment. The closest it comes is self-abuse. They could have gone back to work at any time...

Re:Punishment???

[betterunixthanunix]

You seem to be confused. After the strike, the workers had to work at no pay for every they were on strike. To follow your analogy, it would be as if every time you hit yourself in the head, I came along and hit you in the head again.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

the comment to which you replied was insinuating that, in fact, this is what has happened this time. learn how to read between the lines.

and for fuck's sake, don't bring slavery into this. it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Best and only? It's not 1910 anymore gramps!!

[SuperKendall]

It's true that unions aren't perfect, far from it. Nonetheless, they are the best and only defense that the average low and middle class person has against discrimination, abuse, exploitation and harassment in the workplace.

This is so wrong it's astounding. The FACT is that all of the things you listed have so many regulations covering them and people willing to sue at the drop of a hat, that they are almost nonexistent in almost any workforce - not just one with a union. Sure there are still some cases, there always will be, but businesses pay for this every day in lawsuits - and I don't know unions do any better of a job blocking those things to begin with, as they cannot change human nature.

All of the protections unions once offered have been replaced by regulations that already protect workers. Unions are a dinosaur, sucking money from businesses AND workers alike and fighting to exist in a world that simply does not need them. They are a poster child for why the creation of any large bureaucracy is a horrible thing, because it's a self-perpetuating monster that fights to live even when its usefulness has long gone.

Link please...

[SuperKendall]

After the strike, the workers had to work at no pay for every they were on strike.

This seems REALLY unlikely, do you have any link that describes the exact conditions here?

People cannot be compelled to work without pay.

Re:Link please...

[betterunixthanunix]

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

In particular, this:

The fine for striking is an additional day of pay for each day of a strike, totaling two days' loss for each strike day.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

100 years? Try again. The GOP was doing this in the heathcare debates. Pay thugs to turn up and disrupt meetings. Germany had a political party doing similar stuff in the 1930s. The became quite famous.

The difference...

[SuperKendall]

I see now, but the thing that distinguishes that from working without pay is that it's a fine - you are working for pay, it's just that pay is going to pay off a debt instead of not being paid at all.

I see that law as being a good thing as there are some wooers that simply cannot be allowed to strike en masse, and laws to discourage them from doing so are needed. If public workers are being treated badly enough they need to take their case to the people and have politicians voted in that will support them better.

Re:The difference...

[betterunixthanunix]

The effect is that the employees had to work for no pay -- the fine they received was based on their individual salaries (if I remember correctly, their base salaries, so e.g. employees could work overtime to pay the fine faster). It is a pointless semantic argument, except to make the no-pay work legal by avoiding issues of anti-slavery laws.

My point is not that the law is good or bad, it is that the employees were indeed punished for striking. As for taking their case to the politicians, I would say that New Yorkers as a whole need to rein in the MTA, which has been caught keeping two sets of accounting books and which seems to have the unique ability to choose the worst contractors that can be found (they have poured billions of dollars into late/incomplete/abandoned projects, and even opened a new contract with the same company that defrauded New York City out of $800 million after it was publicly announced that the company was being investigated). For some reason, New York State residents remain oblivious to how many tax dollars are being handed over to the MTA, and have failed to elect politicians who are willing to stand up to the MTA.

Oh well, not really my problem anymore, I live in Virginia now.

US only developed country without single payer

[leftie]

US is only developed country in the world where government doesn't pick up cost of health care. Single payer health care system costs half what we pay, and you get better health care.

The only thing the US health insurance system adds is the cost of selling health insurance. Half of US heath care bill is sales staff and advertising cost.

Re:US only developed country without single payer

[cdrguru]

It costs half of what the US is spending because the old people aren't part of the system. They are simply rationed out.

The US is spending 90% of all healthcare spending on the last year of people's lives. Trying (generally with little effect) to get people to live a little while longer. Other countries have a much simplier policy - you're old, you're dying, please move out of the way.

Now if you can get the old people in the US to go along with that new plan, we can have the government picking up the tab. Otherwise, it will bankrupt the country trying to spend trillions and trillions to get an extra month or two for a lot of people and maybe a couple of years for others.

Obamacare will push this out into the forefront because when all the employers figure out they can pay $10,000 a year (at least) for employee health care coverage or pay a $2000 fine (or less) if they don't cover them, they will push all the healthcare coverage onto the government completely. Today this might be around 2.5 trillion a year - in five years who knows how much it will be but it will be more. The government will have to cut off the old people or go bankrupt.

Better hope you're not old, or at least this mess gets repealed before you get old.

Re:US only developed country without single payer

[Falconhell]

"Other countries have a much simplier policy - you're old, you're dying, please move out of the way."

Ah so my 85 year old parents total health cover for all needs is my imagination is it. If you actually stopped believeing the faux news line you might find that is utter bullshit, at least in Australia

Re:US only developed country without single payer

[s73v3r]

You are a liar, and an awful human being. Your selfishness is getting in the way of people actually having good health care.

Unions trying to kill people, not the other way

[SuperKendall]

I'm not sure why you are so gung-ho in defense of unions. Perhaps in whatever land you live in they are peaceable, but here Unions have a long history of violence and harm to others - there's the examples given here of cutting off phone lines to a police station, but also recently an electrician who runs a non-union shop in Ohio was shot.

Worse still is coming from the unions, as they know they are no longer needed but the union leaders are unwilling to let go of the cushy life style they have grown accustomed to and they don't care how many pawns on both sides they savage to stay in power.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in Germany right now, and from speaking to people who actually are working here I understand that none of them want to deal with any unions. Are the jobs protected in Germany? Well sure, they are protected. For example the farms are subsidized.

You cannot complain about differences between America and Germany by referring to farm subsidies, which in case you don't know, are also done in the US.

Even Michelle Bachman praises the farm subsidies in the US...perhaps because of the share she receives from them.

I won't get into the practical reasons for them, the differences between corporate versus small family farms, or the presence of union or immigrant labor, but really, that's just a bad reference to use to make a distinction.

It's called treason...

[Anonymous Coward]

when you go against your own group for your own personal benefit in a fight.

In many organizations the punishment for treason is a bullet to the head.

Do you honestly believe a little bit of shaming of the scab is an out of proportion punishment, or did I just fall for the bait of a feeble minded troll?

Re:It's called treason...

[shutdown -p now]

when you go against your own group for your own personal benefit in a fight.

What if you disagree with the overall attitude of the group?

What if you no longer believe that you should be a part of said group? What about freedom of association?

In many organizations the punishment for treason is a bullet to the head.

That's only true of some governments, and even then one can always abrogate one's citizenship.

Re:It's called treason...

[bhartman34]

it's called treason when you go against your own group for your own personal benefit in a fight.

It's only "treason" if that "group" is a nation. And it's only even remotely betrayal if you are part of the organization. The person in question was not part of the union, and had no moral or ethical obligation to honor an agreement the union made. So a), she didn't betray any of her peers, and b) it certainly wasn't treason, which, while you might find it inconvenient, actually is a word with a meaning.

Re:It's called treason...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been a non-union telecom worker myself ("right to work" state), the non-union employees get the same contractual benefits as the union represented workers, but do so without paying dues. Non-union workers are basically freeloaders at best, but crossing picket lines just makes you a scab, directly fighting to damage your own interests, your coworkers interests, their families' interests, and the interests of everybody who works for a large corporation. CWA strikes are vanishingly rare - about one every 20 or 30 years at any given major company. If there is a strike, you can be sure that it is the company that is at fault. Anybody who tries to make that last resort ineffective is a traitor, not just to their fellows, their class, their country but to the principles of fairness and obligation, decency and duty.

Those laws against having a real strike (meaning securing the workplace - workers have a property interest in their jobs and have the right to deny access to those who would try to take that, and that interest in protecting property, being an interest of natural people, is superior to any interest of an artificial creature like a joint-stock corporation) - those laws are paid for by big business, administered by people who refuse to enforce any legal obligation of employers, and as such are not worthy of any respect. Picket lines deserve more respect than the corrupt NLRB regulations.

Most NYSE/NASDAQ CEOs don't deserve 7 figures

[leftie]

I'll grant top 5% of CEOs are worth 7 figures + a year.
Bottom 95% should be making less than 7 figures a year
Bottom half should be making less than the President.

Re:Usually a double-game

[roman_mir]

You cannot complain about differences between America and Germany by referring to farm subsidies, which in case you don't know, are also done in the US.

I let the record speak for itself.

Even Michelle Bachman praises the farm subsidies in the US...perhaps because of the share she receives from them.

I don't understand your point.

Farm subsidies by countries are a major contributor to the lack of food and high food prices in the world, which could have much more food produced at much lower prices if governments were not collecting taxes to subsidize farms and then use the same taxes to force farmers destroy the crops to keep prices up.

African countries could provide most of what the world needs in terms of food if major countries stopped subsidizing their own farmers.

What does Bachmann have to do with it? She is only about half retarded.

I won't get into the practical reasons for them

- we all know the practical reasons for why politicians do things - they cater themselves to various business interests and they can do so because they are meddling with businesses in the first place.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

WOOOSH!!!

Oh really... why aren't you a union electrician?

[leftie]

Because you DO NOT have the ability to pay the level of attention to detail all the time needed to work as an union electrician. Get distracted on that job and you can die.

Don't feel bad. Lots of people can't. I can't. I'm scatter-brained as hell

No so

[SuperKendall]

The effect is that the employees had to work for no pay

The end result to them yes, but it's not the same as they were paying back a fine. Even if they quit they would still owe that amount of money.

It is not a pointless semantic argument, because they are not being forced to work - they are having a fine issued that they must pay, one way being through normal work to acquire the money to pay.

My point is not that the law is good or bad, it is that the employees were indeed punished for striking.

Because they were working in positions where striking puts other people at risk. In some cases it is OK to punish people for striking and that is one of them.

For some reason, New York State residents remain oblivious to how many tax dollars are being handed over to the MTA

Probably because quite a lot of them are getting something back from the MTA in return. Eventually that becomes a self-perpetuating cycle and the only way to fix it is for everyone not benefitting from graft and kickbacks leaves and the system collapses on itself.

Re:No so

[betterunixthanunix]

Probably because quite a lot of them are getting something back from the MTA in return. Eventually that becomes a self-perpetuating cycle and the only way to fix it is for everyone not benefitting from graft and kickbacks leaves and the system collapses on itself.

As I understand it, that is a point of contention among roughly half the voters in New York State -- the half that do not live in the New York City area, and who do not directly benefit from the public transit system (they might indirectly benefit from New York City's economic contribution to the state). As for those who do live in the area served by the MTA, the operating budget is technically separate from the "capital improvements" budget, which is where vast amounts of money are sunk into projects that have fallen far behind schedule, or whose final results are not close to what was promised. The system will eventually have to collapse on itself, given the fiscal condition of New York -- eventually the MTA's spending will have to be addressed, either by bringing in new leadership who will see to the completion of the projects or (more likely) killing the projects and letting the transit system stagnate.

Try a couple months ago in Wisconsin

[leftie]

Gov. Scott Walker busted trying to plant fake goons among the student protesters at the WI State Capitol in Madison.

Re:Try a couple months ago in Wisconsin

[Anonymous Coward]

Horseshit, cite your source. And don't bother citing from the "Koch bro's" phone call either as there is no substantive affirmation of even so much as attempting to engage in the behavior you are attributing to Walker.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think it's not happening just as much today as it was 100 years ago? Agent-provocateurs have become very stylish again from what I've heard. They're all the rage from first-world municipalities to third-world despots. Verizon's leadership would look so passe if they negotiated in good faith.

Ongoing Southern tantrum since end of Civil War

[leftie]

Southerners have been throwing a tantrum since the end of the Civil War. They really, really liked that free labor. They've been scheming up way to keep getting labor for free. Every time you hear the term "Preserve Southern culture" translate that as "free labor for White Southern businessmen."

The latest scheme to return free labor to white Southern businesses is "privatized prisons" These privivatized prisons sell prison labor.

Re:Oh really... why aren't you a union electrician

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit. Electrician is butt simple and safe unless you are a moron, drunk or high.

I've been working in load centers and on wiring sense I was in high school and am still kicking.

All the building trades are _easy_. Get over it.

Welcome to drudgedot, again...

[damn_registrars]

As usual the article places all the blame on the union and makes no mention of their grievances... The usual conservative line for this site.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[HornWumpus]

Maybe you should get some skills, then get a better job?

[citation needed]

[betterunixthanunix]

Should I point out where you are missing citations?

The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[SmallFurryCreature]

The discussion on these kind of topics is so vitrolic, so filled with hatred from all sides that you got to wonder how long it will be before the US just tears itself apart. Personally for me the flag waving alone is enough, nobody has to shout out that hard they are a nation standing together unless they known that it is all a lie. No American cares anything about another American unless that other person might be getting a penny that the first doesn't.

So, some people have health care benefits and you don't. Is that a reason to hate all unions? Maybe you should fix your own issue yourselve and not demand everyone else has the same shitty contract you do.

When even South Africa is now moving to national health care, perhaps it is time for Americans to realize the most expensive system in the world that scores as one of the worsed just isn't working.

But hey, continue to fight each other to death over things that other countries solved over half a century ago. Meanwhile US production is going down and down and you country is falling apart around you. Fixed those bridges yet?

2012 going to be interesting. The republicans did it this time, every single one of them is utterly batshit insane. The democrats? They can hardly get rid of Obama but the racist, oops right wingers hate his gut just for being black. Even if he gets re-elected the senate cripples him, the old US idea of both houses keeping each other in check has become a strangle hold on the nation with the tea party putting in the final squeeze. Everyone with a brain knows their ideas will bankrupt the US but they can't be ignored as the lunatic fringe they are.

The US won't fall because someone else was smarter, it will fall because it kills itself from within. It is funny to see from the outside, you got extreme right wingers trying to determine who is the least or most extreme right winger. Mean while the roads are falling apart, education is going to hell and production has ground to a halt with everyone buying Chinese.

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[ironjaw33]

The US won't fall because someone else was smarter, it will fall because it kills itself from within. It is funny to see from the outside, you got extreme right wingers trying to determine who is the least or most extreme right winger. Mean while the roads are falling apart, education is going to hell and production has ground to a halt with everyone buying Chinese.

It's also funny to hear what the outsiders think, looking in. US history is full of polarized opinions and the resulting government indecision. The issues you speak of may be new, but the ensuing debates, turmoil, and even violence is as old as the country itself. This tearing apart you speak of is really just everything functioning as usual.

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[Comen]

I agree, its good to know not everyone is going crazy out there.

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is in the process of tearing itself apart. Did you not see the real estate melt down? The financial melt down? The shrinking middle class? The 50 million Americans with no health insurance? The fact that cities like Detroit are contracting or in complete melt down. The fact that infrastructure such as bridges, roads, water supplies, and so on is falling apart. What sign are you waiting for?

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[Anonymous Coward]

USA is going down the toilet and Slashdot is now officially a pile of shit for running this article I shall have to get my Tech news elsewhere. Anybody know a good Chinese Tech site???

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[judoguy]

Everyone with a brain knows Democrats ideas(yearly trillion+ deficits) will bankrupt the US but they can't be ignored as the lunatic fringe they are.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[Anonymous Coward]

We spend almost twice as much per capita as the next country does and we're ranked many many places below them. This should indicate a serious problem, but no one is in a hurry to fix it. The only thing I hear is about how socialized healthcare is a bad thing because then taxes would go way up, when in reality, we already pay it. Greed and inefficiency.

It is much easier to treat a heart attack when it is simply in the high cholesterol/high blood pressure stage, but a lot of people under 40 have NO CLUE that they have these conditions because they can't afford to go pay $100+ to get a 30 minute check up. The first many people know about it is when they start having chest pain. So a script for meds, diet counseling, and lifestyle advice turns into open heart surgery and months of recovery time. $500 versus $50,000. That's a 100x reduction in cost for that particular issue!

But a lot of people I've met would actually rather watch those around them drop like flies than kick in a few extra bucks a month (like everyone else would have to) to have everyone happy and healthy. This is politics. It isn't about arguing the merits or demerits of a topic, rather, it is about biasing people against ideas. A detailed breakdown analysis of socialized versus privatized healthcare isn't what the political system wanted. A detailed breakdown analysis is almost never what they want. I invite you to look at debates on political issues and you can see an ounce of fact presented with material intended to bias.

Re:The Chinese are laughing their ass off

[jafac]

I sure don't get it.

FACT: Verizon is making HUGE profits.
FACT: Investors contribute to Verizon's success.
FACT: Stocks have been getting beat on for the past 2 months, but before that, were rising vigorously for the past year; and have actually not been doing bad for the past few years, not as great as '96-'01, but better than wages.
FACT: Workers contribute to Verizon's succes.
FACT: Workers pay has been taking a beating - ON AVERAGE, in the US, over the past 30 years.

So - Investors are all watery-eyed about their ROI. Verizon wants to cut workers wages. Workers don't want their wages cut more. And we end up with all this anti-union vitriol? I sure don't get it. 50-100 Investors are worried about whether they can afford the leather option in their mercedes next year. 50-100-thousand Workers are worried about feeding their kids. This is so fucked up it's hard to believe it's not a bad sci-fi movie.

corporate shill

[Anonymous Coward]

way to write a completely unbiased story, asshole!

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

I let the record speak itself.

Who cares about your record? We were discussing farm subsidies, which are done in the US as well.

Bringing up how Germany does things as a contrast does not work when they are doing much the same thing. It discredited the rest of your remarks.

I don't understand your point.

Pointing out hypocrisy on the part of Michelle Bachmann. If you weren't familiar with how she rants and rails against government subsidies while receiving a share herself...ok, but I thought it was clear from the context.

Now you know.

- we all know the practical reasons for why politicians do things - they cater themselves to various business interests and they can do so because they are meddling with businesses in the first place.

That would certainly explain Michelle Bachmann. But hey, did you know that the business interests will meddle just as much on their own without the government involved?

True story that. The free market is a lie, built on numerous delusions.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[Osgeld]

lol yea, its been like that at the last 3 jobs, welcome to the world, one day your company will be doing it as well.

What do you mean 380$ for a 20,000$ deductible and you still have to pay doctors visits for only 1 person is a joke?

Jew World Order

[Dainsanefh]

A majority of the rich are either white man or Jewish bankers. And they utilize the almighty USA military to protect their wealth.

The Talmud said all Gentiles will soon be enslaved by the chosen people. Here we comes 2012.

Re:Usually a double-game

[roman_mir]

Who cares about your record?

- you apparently, because your claim is I don't understand the issues, that I do not know about farm subsidies in USA. That's what those links prove - that you are incorrect on this, so that's a good start.

Bringing up how Germany does things as a contrast does not work when they are doing much the same thing. It discredited the rest of your remarks.

- nice big blatant blanket statement.

You should enumerate what remarks are being discredited, so that I can address them for you and show you why you are wrong on all of your statements.

Pointing out hypocrisy on the part of Michelle Bachmann. If you weren't familiar with how she rants and rails against government subsidies while receiving a share herself...ok, but I thought it was clear from the context.

- I know that she has a farm or somebody who is related to her does. She is a tax attorney I believe, and filed taxes that showed that the farm was getting the subsidies.

Again - what does this have to do with what I am arguing? I am NOT saying Bachmann is correct, I am saying all subsidies are wrong. But I see that logic is not your strong suit, let's continue.

But hey, did you know that the business interests will meddle just as much on their own without the government involved?

- business interests cannot meddle with something that it has no power over. Government regulating businesses gives certain businesses the power to regulate the government and destroy competition.

I have specified the way in which this can be fixed of-course.

Solidarity forever

[Anonymous Coward]

"I personally will never give Verizon one red cent until they start to do right by their employees."

Stand strong, brother!

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, there are many who do. Funny, it's always the liberal's to blame corporate....I guess the jobs they provide aren't enough.

Your connections are unsound.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh gee, maybe the contractors are the ones being screwed, and maybe the reason for the escalation of medical costs has something to do with the increased technology and medicine involved.

Yeah, it turns out when they CAN put something in your heart to keep it beating, or give you lots of medicines to treat your cancer, it's more expensive than when they could just tell you to take two aspirin, set your affairs in order, and pray.

Also, the last question is the wrong one, it's the question of whether labor should be rewarded, not risk.

Re:Your connections are unsound.

[roman_mir]

Oh gee, maybe the contractors are the ones being screwed

- how so? I always am very specific about contracts, I would never take any benefit over a larger hourly wage.

and maybe the reason for the escalation of medical costs has something to do with the increased technology and medicine involved.

- I see. And then maybe the increased technology involved into building microprocessors and computers and hand held devices and TVs is the reason why those things are so much more expensive today than 50 years ago.

Wait a second, many of those things didn't even exist 50 years ago. But is there government subsidy in those things? Like some form of government enforced insurance? Hmmm... not really.

So what you are arguing for is that more technology makes things more expensive, which is the exact opposite of what we are actually observing - more technology makes things LESS expensive, because there is less and less human intervention needed to do what the technology does.

So the last question was: should labor be rewarded?

Well, not all labor is rewarded. You can labor the entire day moving stones back and forward on your backyard, see if that gets rewarded.

What IS rewarded is labor that is needed, and it is rewarded at whatever rates the market sets for it.

Re:Your connections are unsound.

[Anonymous Coward]

- how so? I always am very specific about contracts, I would never take any benefit over a larger hourly wage.

How are "contractors" screwed? Oh various ways, such as by having no employment guarantee, no overtime, no benefits, no protection from abuse.

Maybe you are lucky enough to be in a position where you are free to up and leave if things get bad, but other are not in such a position.

- I see. And then maybe the increased technology involved into building microprocessors and computers and hand held devices and TVs is the reason why those things are so much more expensive today than 50 years ago.

Wait a second, many of those things didn't even exist 50 years ago.

Health did though. But FWIW, yes, there's a lot more spending on such things these days, heck, go see some older buildings versus newer ones. If you can, get the building plans, see how much more they're spending on the infrastructure to support the fancy electronics of today.

Fortunately there have been savings in other aspects, like chimneys and fireplaces, which are now luxuries. And of course, most people consider the benefits to be worth it.

But don't fool yourself into thinking you're not paying for it.

But is there government subsidy in those things? Like some form of government enforced insurance? Hmmm... not really.

Yes, actually, there have been plenty of government subsidies for such things. Just check out any number of electrification projects. Check out the various intellectual property protections. Check out any number of government projects to provide television, internet and other services.

The government has fostered all sorts of development, and that's not even counting how they PAY for so much that they need.

So what you are arguing for is that more technology makes things more expensive, which is the exact opposite of what we are actually observing - more technology makes things LESS expensive, because there is less and less human intervention needed to do what the technology does.

Seems to me you're looking at ideals, but missing the forest for the trees.

Sometimes technology makes things less expensive, sometimes it makes it more expensive. When you have a given state, like health, which you wish to maintain, and there's a new option to foster it, it may well consume more and more of your resources, not less.

I suppose you could posit a situation with a cheap and effective youth drug which kept people young and healthy, but last I checked...that wasn't happening.

And no, I'm not blaming that on some conspiracy to more profitably treat people than cure them, I'm simply saying it is the state of medicine.

Don't like it? Get to work on your youth drug.

So the last question was: should labor be rewarded?

Well, not all labor is rewarded. You can labor the entire day moving stones back and forward on your backyard, see if that gets rewarded.

What IS rewarded is labor that is needed, and it is rewarded at whatever rates the market sets for it.

Sigh, get over your pedantry. If you are simply exerting effort for no purpose, then that wouldn't fit the applicable definition of labor, but instead some broader meaning which is not relevant here.

If you really insist on articulating the question in such a precise way, it can be done, say by rephrasing to "Should you have to pay for access to my labor?" but it won't make you any less of an ass for trying that kind of game. My point was that risk isn't the issue of what should be rewarded, but rather labor is.

Sometimes it may involve risk, sometimes it may not.

Re:Your connections are unsound.

[roman_mir]

How are "contractors" screwed? Oh various ways, such as by having no employment guarantee, no overtime, no benefits, no protection from abuse.

- this is ridiculous. I don't want any of those things, I want the largest possible hourly wage and that's how I choose to work, by foregoing any other perks in exchange for the most money per hour. Why would I ever want to get something that is not monetary in nature, leaving either the employer or government in charge of making decisions on how to spend part of my paycheck? This is the stupidest thing somebody can come up with.

Maybe you are lucky enough to be in a position where you are free to up and leave if things get bad, but other are not in such a position.

- and if you believe that this is your plight, then you get what you can based on your market value, which is mostly objective, but is part subjective, so if you are not a good enough negotiator, you get less. This makes perfect sense.

Health did though. But FWIW, yes, there's a lot more spending on such things these days, heck, go see some older buildings versus newer ones. If you can, get the building plans, see how much more they're spending on the infrastructure to support the fancy electronics of today.

- so when Intel or any other company builds a factory that's government money somehow? No, surely some companies get more preferential treatment than others based on their political connections, but you can't seriously suggest that electronics manufacturers are more regulated than health insurance providers or health care providers. That's not even nonsense, that's worse - that's ignorance of highest degree. Do you know that FDA requires drug manufacturers to go through multiple phases of approval seeking processes, which are not only there to make sure that a new drug is safe for consumption, but also they require proof of efficacy, causing hundreds of millions to be spent on this?

The government has fostered all sorts of development, and that's not even counting how they PAY for so much that they need.

- and they have no authority to do any of it. But if government only limited its functions to border protection, justice system and infrastructure/research and development, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because US economy would have been in most excellent shape.

Sometimes technology makes things less expensive, sometimes it makes it more expensive. When you have a given state, like health, which you wish to maintain, and there's a new option to foster it, it may well consume more and more of your resources, not less.

- technology always makes things less expensive even though the very early adopters may pay more, as the numbers of users go up, the economy of scale kicks in and prices fall.

I suppose you could posit a situation with a cheap and effective youth drug which kept people young and healthy, but last I checked...that wasn't happening.

- with all of the government regulations this won't happen any time soon either. People know they can't do research and hope to sell their inventions in the market without being sponsored by gigantic pharma companies, due to hundreds of millions of dollars and years and years that FDA makes one waste on all the Phase III and IV trials.

Should you have to pay for access to my labor?

- whatever the market dictates.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[HornWumpus]

Sounds like you did the 'new job' part.

Try the 'get some skills' part first next time.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[Osgeld]

sounds like you want to be a worthless troll

ok fuckwit since you know my level of education and my skill set what do you suggest I do next

until then please continue to choke on your mom's dick

thanks

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

- you apparently, because your claim is I don't understand the issues, that I do not know about farm subsidies in USA. That's what those links prove - that you are incorrect on this, so that's a good start.

Nope. You mistake the point of my words, I do not care about your record, and my claim was not that you didn't understand the issues, my objection is to you remarking about the German versus American differences, with no reference whatsoever to the American subsidies to farms.

As I said, you cannot make much of an argument with that example. There is no lack of subsidies on the American side, no real difference between American and Germany in that regard. You were incorrect to make such a statement, and you being informed does not make your statement better, it makes it worse.

Really, you can't win by asserting knowledge here, you said something that really doesn't hold water, the way to deal with that is to own up to it, not claim you are informed.

I would actually give you MORE credit if you were ignorant, and didn't know. Claiming you are informed, but still said such a stupid thing? Makes you look worse. But again, my concern was not with your knowledge, but with your attempt to make a distinction that didn't hold water.

And yes, it does make you look worse, the more you try to assert your knowledge. Could I refute more of your posting? Sure, but why bother? You can't even see your mistake here, why look for other examples elsewhere?

Your defensiveness won't change a bit. You can't even tolerate a remark that has little to do with you, but refers to the subject itself.

See below.

- I know that she has a farm or somebody who is related to her does. She is a tax attorney I believe, and filed taxes that showed that the farm was getting the subsidies.

Again - what does this have to do with what I am arguing? I am NOT saying Bachmann is correct, I am saying all subsidies are wrong. But I see that logic is not your strong suit, let's continue.

And apparently your strong suit isn't reading comprehension. Not everything is about you. Pointing out Michelle Bachmann's hypocrisy may just be pointing out HER hypocrisy, and not saying anything about you, or your arguments.

Believe it or not, you don't have to focus entirely on yourself. And I certainly won't focus on you, I may well say some more off-hand comments if I feel like it might be a related subject.

If I had wanted to say you were like Michelle Bachmann, rest assured, I would have....and actually, in a way you are showing a similarity, because you are defensive like she is, when told her assertion about John Quincey Adams being an anti-slavery founding father was misleading, she insisted that it was the truth, because well, he truly was! Despite being a teenage boy and not having expressed any anti-slavery sentiments till later in life.

But no, I don't believe you're a hypocrite like she is.

- business interests cannot meddle with something that it has no power over.

Oh, that's so cute, you think they won't have any power. Hardly.

You should really just take a moment to realize how foolish an idea that is.

Here's what will happen if the government does nothing...the businesses? They'll still have power in some way or fashion, the government is just one convenient path, even if there was no government...they'd just make something to fill the role as desired.

Because power does concentrate.

If you want to work on a way to prevent power from concentrating, you are going to have to deal with reality, not your ideal state.

Why do you think governments must be representative? It's because of their power over others, and people who say, argue that contribution is important are really misguided, the vote is not a reward, it is your due because they will make decisions that impact you. This is an off-hand remark though, I don't know if you do or d

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[DaHat]

I don't expect to... the damage is already done I fear... thanks 100% to the Democrats.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[DaHat]

Wait? We shouldn’t blame the government or they law when they are the one that imposed a 40%, nondeductible tax on so called ‘Cadillac plans’ and the companies that offer them?

Riiiight.

Heaven forbid any organization (public or private) say “Gee, our costs are skyrocketing due to a new law... rather than pay the added costs... lets see if we can’t find a way to be taxed less.”

Private individuals do it... why shouldn’t corportations?

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[DaHat]

Yes... my company is a cheep whore because it, like many were not keen on paying the 40% tax that will be imposed on their health insurance plans come 2018.

I would expect that if tomorrow you learn that anything you buy on my own is going to get a new tax at a similar rate down the line... that you too (like most persons or companies) will try to find a way to avoid* that tax.

*Note the use of the word 'avoid', vs 'evade', there is a key difference when talking about taxes to each term.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[Osgeld]

yes god help a minor profit loss, your ceo might not be able to get a new lexus this quarter cause of these damn new taxes (which added all up still does reach the level we had in the 80's and 90's but yet somehow we were prosperous)

your company is a cheap whore cause it would rather watch you die than man up a little

Re:Best and only? It's not 1910 anymore gramps!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulations? Lawsuits?

You want to guess how much unions contribute to those being effective ways to achieve justice?

You want to guess how long they'll be effective absent people being able to go to a union if they don't get justice from the courts? Or you want to look at all the people deploring those EVIL lawsuits and job-killing regulations?

See, here's the thing about courts of law, they aren't made from any pure principles of justice, but rather they rely on a foundation of public interest and cooperation.

Getting rid of unions won't make the world better, it'll make it worse. You want to complain about corrupt unions? Fair enough, but the solution is reform, not elimination.

Otherwise you'll just be arguing against human nature yourself.

Re:Usually a double-game

[WorBlux]

History doesn't expire. This agitator tactic is often used by the FBI. Anyways google books has the book quoted availible for free, and looks fairly interesting I'm still not sure how often the tactic was used, or weather it ever extended beyond counsel.

"Gutting Health Care" = 1 of the BEST

[Anonymous Coward]

schemes companies use to BREAK unions & to profit by union mistakes in the LONG term.

* So sure - The "powers that be" (companies) give up a SMALL wage increase, for instance (in the short term) vs. a LONG TERM HEALTH CARE PLAN!

(I want you all to really, Really, REALLY *THINK* ABOUT THIS ONE... because what co$t$ a LOT MORE in the "long-haul"? Health care costs!)

APK

P.S.=> This is how Unions get slowly broken, & breaking long-term health care is one of the ways that in the LONG RUN (which is usually what the schemers for the companies are thinking, long haul, when in "negotiations" with unions that is) that companies SCREW union workers, everytime...

... apk

I always wondered

[alexmin]

What it is so special about physical wire-line installation business that attract dumbasses in much greater proportion than other networking professions? Now I kind of embarrassed to miss the obvious: unions.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[DaHat]

You call a 40% tax on an already very expensive (self insured) health insurance plan is a 'minor profit loss'?

Do tell then... at what point would you say "Well... I guess the tax is a bit high then, I guess changing things might be in order"? 50%? 75%? 100%? 500% 1000%?

Re:Usually a double-game

[sjames]

Where do you think the jobs are going in this regulated market, which is skewed in favor of labor, because there are many employees, who are a majority voting block, while the employers are a tiny minority?

Unemployment is going back up and inflation adjusted income is trending down and you still come out with that? Even in a "good" job market over the last several decades, labor's position hasn't been strong enough to keep employers from cutting training and apprentice programs to the bone. GDP per capita has gone up by a factor of 6 since the early '60s but income is flat.

So did a little wooden cuckoo actually pop out of your forehead when you typed that or was it just a metaphor?

As for the rest, the people of the U.S. are under no obligation to even allow these corporations to exist at all. Incorporation is not a right, and is granted on the condition that the incorporation remain in the best interests of the people. If the corporations keep "re-thinking" jobs out of the country, the people might start 're-thinking" the corporations out of existence.If the wealthy like China and the 3rd world so much, they should go live there.

Meanwhile, it would be fairly amusing to watch Verizon try to outsource the installation of a fiber in the U.S. to a factory in China.

'Criminal acts of sabotage'

[dugeen]

I detect a tiny tiny amount of bias in the anonymous reader's summary of this story. He's just a lackey hoping that the ruling class will throw him a bone if he's a good dog.

Re:'Criminal acts of sabotage'

[residieu]

The examples in the story are definitely criminal and I'd say fit the definition of sabotage. I'm sure the vast majority of strikers did not engage in this sort of behavior, but I'd like to see the union come down hard on the people who did for making them look bad.

Re:'Criminal acts of sabotage'

[Anonymous Coward]

I detect a tiny tiny amount of bias in the anonymous reader's summary of this story. He's just a lackey hoping that the ruling class will throw him a bone if he's a good dog.

I detect a significant amount of bias in Dugeen's comment, made clear through his or her use of well known buzzwords and talking points like 'lackey', 'ruling class', 'throw him a bone', and 'if he's a good dog'. Such terminology is used almost word for word practically any time anyone criticizes a union, or union members, or their activities, no matter how harshly or gently. "Lackey!" "Ruling class!" straight out of old agit-prop.

Please at least try to be original in your criticism instead of sounding like a recording. And watch out for those automatic presumptions about someone you've never met and with whom your only contact is probably a few sentences on a page.

And lest you do the same for me, being anonymous and all, I'll just state that I've had my own taste of this kind of thing years ago when a local musicians/stage union went on strike (they were affiliated with one of the big unions, don't recall which; that was 30+ years ago); I was in high school and crew for the school bands; the jazz band was in a competition at a local (big) theater and I had to drop off equipment and make sure with the stage guys (who were on strike so the manager helped out) about lights and mike positions.

So I, a 16 year old high schooler learned all about unions that day. Car keystriped. 'Scab' painted along the side. Yelled at, spat on, pushed and shoved going in and out the back entrance. Minor equipment damage when the hand truck got 'bumped' all accidental-like.

Oh of course it wasn't the union. It was just a few folks getting too worked up, so emotional and all. The union would _never_ condone such activities! Why it probably was not even members! The union bosses were _shocked_ that such things were happening! Surely I was just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time while some 'other' folks trying to give the union a bad name were acting out!

I just wish security video and personal digicams and cellphone cams were available then so I could add faces to the police report. By the time they got there the thugs were gone, replaced by nice clean cut family types wearing clean t-shirts and being ever so polite.

Wow! I must be a lackey hoping that the 'ruling class' will 'throw me a bone' for being 'a good dog'.

Recent US education fails again

[dbIII]

Norway isn't third world :)
Oil comes from more than just the middle east and it's cheaper for the UK to get oil from Norway than Saudi Arabia, let alone the basket case of Iraq where the oil rarely flows smoothly.
To save you building me up as yet another strawman to attack I'd better let you know that I've never even been to the UK or Norway. Guess if you like, or even better, attack the argument instead of the person this time.

It's not like that at all

[dbIII]

The rest of the world is pretty much just riding along because of the profits made in the US.

No.
The profits are just bigger than elsewhere in the USA because the market can bear it and competition is stifled. The HPV vaccine is an example where the development and testing costs were spent elsewhere and it is merely licenced in the USA at the same cost per unit as elsewhere - yet the price per unti is about ten times more than anywhere else.
It's plain old-fashioned price gouging by a monopoly. I'm suprised it hasn't already backfired with large quantities of hard to detect counterfeit drugs like the ones that are causing so much trouble in Africa.

Re:Usually a double-game

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the "european americans" need to pay reparations to "african americans" to make up for slavery, too?

In a word, YES

No sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry Verizon workers. But once you start resorting to vandalism, threatening legal replacement workers and putting your children in harm's way, I have no sympathy for your cause. I encourage Verizon to FIRE all your asses and hire those replacement workers permanently.

I'm also not particularly moved when your striking get in my way when I'm trying to get to my job (in no way related to Verizon), or blow your stupid whistles in my ear.

it's one thing to report the news

[Anonymous Coward]

and another to take sides. verizon is blameless in all this? does verizon pay its workers enough to pay for a phone and verizon service?

Thuggery and intimidation=UNIONS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, Unions are completely out of control. On top of stealing our money they feel they have to resort to thuggery and intimidation. From a Libertarian's point of view, I feel they have a right be union in the private sector but companies should have the rights to fire people if they refuse to work. This is not the 19th century anymore, workplaces are safe, compensation is fair and there is no such think as child labor abuse; they simply do not exist anymore. Unions' time has come and gone.

As for the public sector; it is a no brainer. There should be NO unions in the government work place because it is in direct conflict with the general, tax paying public. Collective bargaining between a 19th century style union, constituents of the people that slithered their way into office? HA, there is no such thing! Total conflict of interest between the union and the entire rest of the country! This sounds more like North Korea, China, Venezuela, Cuba or the former USSR than the United States of America.

Illegal employees breaking legal laws, illegally

[Catbeller]

Nice to legally know how many times the law-breaking illegal striking workers illegally broke the law while illegally hampering the legal acts of their employer, illegally. Not to mention that they were illegal and broke the law.

You do know that all strikes were once illegal? The governors and US Presidents used to call upon the National Guard to shoot strikers dead. Because they were, you know, illegal. Because the law said they couldn't do stuff illegally. Their employers could break the law, of course, because it's hard to jail or shoot a corporation. And they've bought all the laws they need, so it's pretty hard to find a law they can break.

Not to mention the whole ex-President-illegally-invaded-Iraq-and-killed-a-million-people-thing-for-nothing thing, still going on, but no one cares about that. Them strikers and unions are the real threat. They might want more money from fabulously rich employers, and that's just not legal.

Yeah! Wait, what?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

All those bastards who commit disobedience, those horrible "criminal acts" should be locked up! How dare they sit and do nothing?

Oooooo, wait a minute, I've heard that before... from Jim Crow advocates speaking about Rosa Parks.

Jesus Christ people, they're non-violently sitting and forming picket lines. Save the criminal bastard labels for those conducting actual outward acts of sabotage.

Otherwise, you look like a TWAT when your comments are directed at some of the greatest people of the last few generations. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and even the Egypt Tahrir Square.

So they're striking over pay and hours, and the usual bits and pieces. They're not burning your homes down, they're fighting a telecom. Since when the hell have we started considering telecoms friendly, either to customers or employees?

Cite Sources

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Not sure why people dislike them. Maybe it's another anti-socialist thing.

Because they harass people at their homes, bother their children, trespass on people's property, block people into their homes, and try to force their way into people's homes.

I want you to cite sources for unions forming human chains around people's home and then breaking into those homes. I'm sorry, I must not pay much attention to the news lately, because I've not seen these union mobs in the US breaking into homes. I call BULLSHIT.

Having been in workplaces with unions and those without, anybody that says for manual labor that a union is worse... they are living in dream land. Oh, how horrible! They pay dues! You mean, that couple dollars a week for earning almost twice that of most non-union shops? You mean, that couple dollars that pays the bills because it goes into a "strike fund" so you can feed your kids when the CEO tells you to take an 80% pay cut? You mean that "pay them for the privilege of working"?

I wish people would a) cite their rhetoric and b) were smart enough not to Mod Up people "Insightful" who make wholly unsubstantiated claims that, frankly, look like total bullshit on the face of those claims.

Re:Cite Sources

[Nidi62]

Can you not read? First-hand accounts of cars blocking driveways, putting feet in doors preventing them from being closed, and other criminal acts. No, these are not published accounts, these are first-hand accounts that I have heard from the people that actually experienced this. Unions are nothing more than criminal thugs who will force you to do things their way.

verizon management is completely trustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows that management would never exploit its employees using media to show that unions are bad.
Verizon, I am sure pays all its taxes, supports democracy, never exploits customers or employees. That is why unions are bad.

Libertarian likes the idea of unions?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Judging from your username, I doubt you seriously "like the idea of unions". But I love these long threads of unsubstantiated claims and anecdotes. No wonder 44% of the US population also thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old, nobody cites, and nobody demands citation.

Re:Libertarian likes the idea of unions?

[Libertarian001]

Right, I'm a libertarian, therefore I'm against people being free to assemble in ways that benefit them. Has it ever occurred to you that libertarian =/= Libertarian, and just as not all Democrats agree with each other, and not all Republicans agree with each other, that not all members of other groups agree with each other? I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of your troll post.

Re:Usually a double-game

[roman_mir]

Unemployment is going back up and inflation adjusted income is trending down and you still come out with that?

- because it is true and all of the problems you are referring to are caused by the mob rule of democracy, which overran the republic. When you talk about "inflation adjusted", how about realizing that inflation in USA is in double digits today, about 13%, and that it makes no sense to keep capital in that country given that level of inflation, given all of the labor laws and taxes and subsidies to monopolies.

Even in a "good" job market over the last several decades, labor's position hasn't been strong enough to keep employers from cutting training and apprentice programs to the bone

- it was only good by government inflating the money supply and stimulating consumption and causing bubbles to be inflated. Employers cutting training and apprentice programs is direct result of government interference with regulations and taxes. Even the minimum wage laws alone caused destruction of apprentice programs, and with all of the subsidies to education that government transfers to education institutions via student loans, what sense does it make for a company to hire somebody without the very maximum level of education that can be had in this free-for-all? Of-course nobody gives a shit that the students end up owning mortgages without owning actual houses with all this insane debt. And of-course the government wants this to continue, it's another massive stimulus, which on one hand transfers money from tax payers/creditors/USD denominated savings holders to government propped up institutions, and on the other hand it prevents the unemployment numbers from skyrocketing, as most of those students are staying at school longer, getting into more debt and not entering the work force. Most of those students shouldn't be in gov't colleges at all, "studying" sociology and then law (the system churns out worthless humanities degrees, and then the students look at their employment options and go for further studies this time in law, increasing the numbers of lawyers in the system, thus raising the levels of litigation.)

GDP per capita has gone up by a factor of 6 since the early '60s but income is flat.

1. 70% of US GDP is consumption based. Those are products created elsewhere and consumed in USA. What kind of 'production' indicator is that?
2. GDP is way overstated, because inflation is way understated. Real inflation is near 13% and CPI says it's just over 3.5%, so GDP has been falling by annual 10% at least for 5 years now, not growing.
3. Income is not flat, due to all of the inflation it's falling - the purchasing power of consumers is falling. This really started in 1971, 40 years ago, with Nixon defaulting on the promise to pay gold for US reserve notes.

So did a little wooden cuckoo actually pop out of your forehead when you typed that or was it just a metaphor?

- I am really wondering what it is that you have for brains, and I have an idea, but I won't go into the details here.

As for the rest, the people of the U.S. are under no obligation to even allow these corporations to exist at all.

- well, it's definitely outside of authority of federal government even to provide limits on legal liability to corporations. The entire notion of a corporation is government created, which is part of the reason for the current problems, as nobody is being held personally responsible for anything.

Incorporation is not a right, and is granted on the condition that the incorporation remain in the best interests of the people.

- you are so mistaken, it's crazy. What people? The best interests of the people are served when government stays out of all of the business altogether and doesn't distort the market by creating such things as corporations. Businesses exist without any special governmen

It's

[Anonymous Coward]

illegal, plain and simple. They are committing extortion against these companies. If they really do not like their pay or benefits, then they should feel free to quit. There are plenty of other people who would love to be making the money and getting the benefits that these union people are making. They need to stop being babies and throwing a temper tantrum every single time they don't get what they want. Grow up, get a job, if you don't like your job (position, pay, benefits), find a new one. That's what the rest of the world does.

Re:Usually a double-game

[khallow]

This is known to people coming from more liberal indoctrination I guess

FIFY.

It's worth noting here that there was all along a simple fix to this sort of problem: enforcing existing law. We don't need labor union mythology here. If, for example, the abuses of union-busting businesses in the late 19th Century, had been prosecuted by law (last I heard dozens of assaults in 19th Century America were just as illegal as they are now, the difference is that the law wasn't enforced), then the history of labor would have been considerably different.

The past can't be changed, but it can be compared to the present. Currently, we have good enforcement of law. So the union-busting tactics of the past would not only be illegal now, they would be prosecuted now. That makes all the difference.

So why still use the no longer relevant history as an example? I guess there's two reasons. One, because the past has already happened and can't be changed (except by the enterprising revisionist), it's unassailable as a rhetorical device. We can debate the relevance of labor unions or what powers they should be granted, but we can't really debate what happened in the past.

Second, if one had to base their argument on enforcement of law, that could have repercussions for other parts of their ideology. Labor ideologues don't seem interested in following the law except when it suits their purposes. A blanket acceptance of or acquiescence to the law would hamper their activities and beliefs.

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[DaHat]

While we may not know your level of education... it is clear from your posts here you possess not only a tremendous intellect, but also a kind of professionalism and maturity that combined would be a winning combination for almost any employer, in any industry in this country.

No doubt it is the loss of all of those companies who have turned you down for better jobs with better insurance.

Re:Usually a double-game

[sjames]

Considering that a couple posts ago you claimed that things were tilted in labor's favor and just now enumerated all the reasons it's not, It seems a bit hard to have a conversation.

As for corporate charter, I am not wrong. I was stating a fact, that is what they ARE right now (even though a great many are unaware of the public good requirement and it seems to never be enforced). I wasn't expressing an opinion of what they should or shouldn't be.

I fully agree that things are being mis-managed, but I disagree on what it should be. I consider leaving the market to itself to be akin to letting a baby play with a loaded gun. At the same time, I agree that granted monopolies should be as limited in scope as possible and that if well regulated, a market will outperform central planning every time.

As for minimum wage, consider it a shorthand way to keep employers from turning the social safety net into a subsidy for their payroll. If an employer positions themselves to take unfair advantage of a poor job market to pay people less than it takes to stay off of welfare and food stamps, then effectively welfare and food stamps become a payroll subsidy. Perhaps we should pick up the tab for maintaining the other aspects of their operation as well. We feed their employees, should we resurface their parking lot and oil their assembly line for them too?

You speak of this economy of consumers, what would you have, an economy where people only produce and don't consume? How will they avoid starvation?

Re:Lets be sure to place the blame in the right pl

[BenoitRen]

Because it's greedy and disrespectful towards their employees? This logic isn't hard.