An Escalade on the highway will burn 1 gallon per 16 miles. Assuming highway cruise speed of 75, we're talking about 5 gallons per hour, or roughly $10 per hour (at the national average).
So we need 40 Escalades to match one Blackhawk.
36,114 Escalades were sold in 2002, according to GM. 35,621 in 2003. So in just 2 years, we have a little over 70,000 Escalades on the streets; this is equivalent to about 1750 Blackhawks. Though exact numbers are hard to find, there appear to be about 2000-2500 Blackhawks in the US Armed Forces.
Even assuming we run the Blackhawks as much as the Escalades, *one model* of SUV counterbalances the entire US military stock of Blackhawks.
I didn't say they can't buy them. I just think it makes them idiots and jackasses to buy a vehicle that's actually less suitable to their uses for it than other vehicles available.
And how do I know what they need? I observe. If you routinely drive an SUV with one person and no equipment in it and never drive it offroad, did you need it? Probably not. Would you have been better served by something else? Almost definitely.
Note: it isn't 85 octane he's talking about, he's talking about E-85, a totally different beast.
E-85 is an 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline fuel that can be used in certain vehicles (mostly late model Big 3 pickups, but also most Tauruses since 95, some Dodge minivans, and even the 03 Benz C320).
Actually, I hate them because they make driving in anything that isn't 6 feet off the ground more dangerous. I can't see as well around them, I'm more at risk in a crash because they're more likely to ride up over my bumper, and 99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THEM DON'T FUCKING NEED THEM.
Let's not forget that their average fuel economy is worse than my fucking lawnmower.
Seems a bit absurd, yeah, but many patents do on the surface.
I don't regard CFD as applied science. I don't regard semiconductors work as applied science.
Until you go about trying to make it do something. Patenting Gauss' Theorem for approximation of differential systems is totally wrong; patenting Gauss' Theorem for approximation of differential systems, said approximation used to create a self-modifying wing surface, is legit. That's the application line, and USPTO needs to back off a bit.
I think engineers malign scientists.:) (And I'm an engineer, so I find it totally acceptable to say so and do so.)
Closed shops are illegal. You might have to work in a union shop, in which case you *can* (and don't let anyone tell you you can't) work as a non-member. However, you will still have to pay a portion of dues to the union - the portion covering insurance, strike benefits, and similar actions of the union. Political activities are not included in the non-member dues.
The employer in these cases has decided they don't want to negotiate seperately with union and non-union employees. Can't complain about that.
Closed shops are illegal now, for the record. What you're thinking of is a union shop - non-members can work there, and have to pay a portion of dues (the portion that goes to non political activities) to the union for their arbitration work.
Most unions save some portion of their dues in order to pay the striking employees a strike wage. Generally not as good as the full wages, but generally a strike is less expensive to the employees than a court case would be.
Remember, an hours worth of a decent lawyers time might be a day or two worth of wages for most union members.
I don't know. I see unions as a capitalist position - they're simply the acknowledgement that bargaining position is improved by controlling more labor capital.
I don't think pure capitalism is a good idea; in the past, the pendulum swung too far towards the side of labor, resulting in the historical abuses by unions and the resulting economic downturns in the 70s. But now its swinging too far back towards the side of capital, resulting in a return to conditions antithetical to the best interests of workers. The best economic growth is achieved not by bowing down to one side or the other, but by competition between the two.
(Fuck you, by the way - you're a jackass - I am not employed by a union, but I respect the idea).
You obviously have an abusive union. If the union's contract requires that they move everything, it is their responsibility to move it within a reasonable time frame. Most unions don't give a shit about you moving a monitor; they care about things like heavy equipment (server racks and furniture and the like). If they're willing to file a grievance over your moving a monitor, fuck them, you're right. But if you start moving server racks, I have no problem with them filing a grievance against you, just as I expect you'd be a little bit pissed if your boss replaced you with less than minimum-wage Indian coders.
But calling them union thugs betrays a certain mindset. Most union members don't move shit. They do skilled work. They just happen to realize what most software/IT workers refuse to - they will have better conditions in groups than alone.
I don't know how many jobs I've created. I know that in the year I've been in full-time employment, the projects I've worked on have been quite successful, leading to my company doing very, very well. I couldn't quantify it, but I would bet that the work I've done has led to job creation. I work for a large corporation, which makes it more difficult to give you a number; I hope you understand.
That said, I've worked in a union and now outside of one, I've run a not-for-profit with 6 employees and ~120 volunteers, and I've worked as employee #2 for a small (and successful, I will note) engineering business. All of which occurred while I was in school. So I think I can safely state that I have some experience in labor and its management.
Nice try on the "many overseas companies use automation". The manufacturing industries hardest hit in the US (automotive, electronics, semi-conductors, steel) are generally far more advanced in technique overseas.
Of course automation looks more desirable when employees are union - anything that lets you reduce the number of people you employ is going to look more attractive when the employees are more costly. However, there are costly non-union employees too - the difference there is that they probably don't have contracts guaranteeing certain levels of employment. They'll just get fired.
The relevant legislation is the Wagner Act; a summary:
"The general objective of the act to guarantee to employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection." The NLRA establishes procedures for the selection of a labor organization to represent a unit of employees in collective bargaining. The act prohibits employers from interfering with this selection. The NLRA requires the employer to bargain with the appointed representative of its employees. It does not require either side to agree to a proposal or make concessions but does that each side bargain in good faith. Proposals which would violate the NLRA or other laws may not be the subject matter of collective bargaining. The NLRA also establishes regulations on what tactics (e.g. strikes, lockouts, picketing) a side in negotiations may employ to further their bargaining objectives."
Basically - they *have* to negotiate with the union. The union has to negotiate back. If agreement can't be reached, the company doesn't have to deal with the union, but the company cannot refuse to negotiate with the legally selected representative of their employees, embodied as a union.
A strike is a lot more effective than a court complaint, because a strike hurts the company *right now* and costs the employees a minimal amount, while the court complaints might hurt the company some day, and costs the employees a lot.
As to FedEx v. UPS - because FedEx management has seen the light, and realizes that if they don't want unions they need to treat their workers fairly?
If you have good management, you don't need a union.
I'm not hanging it on altruism. I'm hanging it on the idea that most people are willing to work quid pro quo - get my back, I'll get yours. Right now, you're right - unionization in this country is way down, and it wouldn't work. But I expect that to change - the pendulum swung towards the companies for a while, but it will swing back as their abuses get worse.
I don't expect Wal-Mart workers to buy union. I do expect union workers to do so. I'm no longer union, but I still make an effort to buy union/fair labor when at all possible. Look at how many people buy organic, or green, or healthy. Get them to believe in the idea of union solidarity, just not within the union, but between unions, and its a weapon again.
I would say that unions are almost entirely not the reason for forcing manufacturing overseas, but they make for a convenient scapegoat. At worst, they might have accelerated the process. Abusive unions bear more than their fair share of responsibility for this, much as abusive employers bear most of the responsibility for the formation of unions in the first place.
Similarly, offshoring/outsourcing isn't responsible for most of the job loss in the US, but it makes a nice scapegoat.
Companies create real difficulties for employees that go far beyond wages. These difficulties translate into real costs for the employee. Pardon me for caring more about the employee.
Actually, companies use automated manufacturing because of little things like repeatability, cost, speed, and tolerance. A product produced by a highly automated process is nearly always of a higher quality than a hand-assembled product, when produced in the same volume. If the employees hadn't been unionized, the company would have gone to an automated process anyway, because humans can't do what automated manufacturing can.
This is why the plants built overseas still use automated techniques - AM is simply BETTER. If it was solely cost of labor that drove AM, why would they use it overseas, where labor is cheap?
For your first example - it's their JOB. Should have called them to do it, its what they get paid for. If the other employees start doing their jobs, then they might lose them. Its just that (unlike you), their contract with their employer states that the employer can't employ someone else to do their work.
The second example is an abusive union, and there's no defense to that, except to say: what about companies that fire employees who bring grievances against management? The problem goes both ways.
At which point the other union employees in the country can boycott the union-breakers, and the union-breakers fail.
It will never make economic sense to outsource if the end result is that your major market (the US) turns on you, and this is why unions can stop outsourcing.
At which point (if the unions are working properly), *all* union members everywhere stop using that company's products entirely, and the company fails.
You think UAW workers are going to be ordering new phone service from SBC if CWA goes on general strike, as opposed to this limited strike? Hell no they won't.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot more Escalades than Blackhawks.
An Escalade on the highway will burn 1 gallon per 16 miles. Assuming highway cruise speed of 75, we're talking about 5 gallons per hour, or roughly $10 per hour (at the national average).
So we need 40 Escalades to match one Blackhawk.
36,114 Escalades were sold in 2002, according to GM. 35,621 in 2003. So in just 2 years, we have a little over 70,000 Escalades on the streets; this is equivalent to about 1750 Blackhawks. Though exact numbers are hard to find, there appear to be about 2000-2500 Blackhawks in the US Armed Forces.
Even assuming we run the Blackhawks as much as the Escalades, *one model* of SUV counterbalances the entire US military stock of Blackhawks.
Enough research for you?
Considering that most of the world dislikes both the US and their own governments, that's not exactly a meaningful statement.
I didn't say they can't buy them. I just think it makes them idiots and jackasses to buy a vehicle that's actually less suitable to their uses for it than other vehicles available.
And how do I know what they need? I observe. If you routinely drive an SUV with one person and no equipment in it and never drive it offroad, did you need it? Probably not. Would you have been better served by something else? Almost definitely.
Note: it isn't 85 octane he's talking about, he's talking about E-85, a totally different beast.
E-85 is an 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline fuel that can be used in certain vehicles (mostly late model Big 3 pickups, but also most Tauruses since 95, some Dodge minivans, and even the 03 Benz C320).
Lots of info at e85fuel.com
Actually, I hate them because they make driving in anything that isn't 6 feet off the ground more dangerous. I can't see as well around them, I'm more at risk in a crash because they're more likely to ride up over my bumper, and 99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THEM DON'T FUCKING NEED THEM.
Let's not forget that their average fuel economy is worse than my fucking lawnmower.
Seems a bit absurd, yeah, but many patents do on the surface.
:) (And I'm an engineer, so I find it totally acceptable to say so and do so.)
I don't regard CFD as applied science. I don't regard semiconductors work as applied science.
Until you go about trying to make it do something. Patenting Gauss' Theorem for approximation of differential systems is totally wrong; patenting Gauss' Theorem for approximation of differential systems, said approximation used to create a self-modifying wing surface, is legit. That's the application line, and USPTO needs to back off a bit.
I think engineers malign scientists.
Closed shops are illegal. You might have to work in a union shop, in which case you *can* (and don't let anyone tell you you can't) work as a non-member. However, you will still have to pay a portion of dues to the union - the portion covering insurance, strike benefits, and similar actions of the union. Political activities are not included in the non-member dues.
The employer in these cases has decided they don't want to negotiate seperately with union and non-union employees. Can't complain about that.
Closed shops are illegal now, for the record. What you're thinking of is a union shop - non-members can work there, and have to pay a portion of dues (the portion that goes to non political activities) to the union for their arbitration work.
Most unions save some portion of their dues in order to pay the striking employees a strike wage. Generally not as good as the full wages, but generally a strike is less expensive to the employees than a court case would be.
Remember, an hours worth of a decent lawyers time might be a day or two worth of wages for most union members.
I don't know. I see unions as a capitalist position - they're simply the acknowledgement that bargaining position is improved by controlling more labor capital.
I don't think pure capitalism is a good idea; in the past, the pendulum swung too far towards the side of labor, resulting in the historical abuses by unions and the resulting economic downturns in the 70s. But now its swinging too far back towards the side of capital, resulting in a return to conditions antithetical to the best interests of workers. The best economic growth is achieved not by bowing down to one side or the other, but by competition between the two.
I'm non-union. If one of the other EEs started doing my work, you bet your ass I'd bitch to management. Wouldn't you?
It's the same thing. Just the fact that a union's involved gets people all stupid about it.
(Fuck you, by the way - you're a jackass - I am not employed by a union, but I respect the idea).
You obviously have an abusive union. If the union's contract requires that they move everything, it is their responsibility to move it within a reasonable time frame. Most unions don't give a shit about you moving a monitor; they care about things like heavy equipment (server racks and furniture and the like). If they're willing to file a grievance over your moving a monitor, fuck them, you're right. But if you start moving server racks, I have no problem with them filing a grievance against you, just as I expect you'd be a little bit pissed if your boss replaced you with less than minimum-wage Indian coders.
But calling them union thugs betrays a certain mindset. Most union members don't move shit. They do skilled work. They just happen to realize what most software/IT workers refuse to - they will have better conditions in groups than alone.
Hmm.
I don't know how many jobs I've created. I know that in the year I've been in full-time employment, the projects I've worked on have been quite successful, leading to my company doing very, very well. I couldn't quantify it, but I would bet that the work I've done has led to job creation. I work for a large corporation, which makes it more difficult to give you a number; I hope you understand.
That said, I've worked in a union and now outside of one, I've run a not-for-profit with 6 employees and ~120 volunteers, and I've worked as employee #2 for a small (and successful, I will note) engineering business. All of which occurred while I was in school. So I think I can safely state that I have some experience in labor and its management.
Nice try on the "many overseas companies use automation". The manufacturing industries hardest hit in the US (automotive, electronics, semi-conductors, steel) are generally far more advanced in technique overseas.
Of course automation looks more desirable when employees are union - anything that lets you reduce the number of people you employ is going to look more attractive when the employees are more costly. However, there are costly non-union employees too - the difference there is that they probably don't have contracts guaranteeing certain levels of employment. They'll just get fired.
Matter of degree, true. :)
/. tends to get my union-supporting side fired up, you know? :)
I think of almost entirely not as 10%, whereas partly implies 20-40% to me, so its a big enough difference for me to argue about.
Also, the amount of anti-union sentiment I see on
The relevant legislation is the Wagner Act; a summary: can be found at this site (Google cache).
Basically - they *have* to negotiate with the union. The union has to negotiate back. If agreement can't be reached, the company doesn't have to deal with the union, but the company cannot refuse to negotiate with the legally selected representative of their employees, embodied as a union.
A strike is a lot more effective than a court complaint, because a strike hurts the company *right now* and costs the employees a minimal amount, while the court complaints might hurt the company some day, and costs the employees a lot.
As to FedEx v. UPS - because FedEx management has seen the light, and realizes that if they don't want unions they need to treat their workers fairly?
If you have good management, you don't need a union.
I'm not hanging it on altruism. I'm hanging it on the idea that most people are willing to work quid pro quo - get my back, I'll get yours. Right now, you're right - unionization in this country is way down, and it wouldn't work. But I expect that to change - the pendulum swung towards the companies for a while, but it will swing back as their abuses get worse.
I don't expect Wal-Mart workers to buy union. I do expect union workers to do so. I'm no longer union, but I still make an effort to buy union/fair labor when at all possible. Look at how many people buy organic, or green, or healthy. Get them to believe in the idea of union solidarity, just not within the union, but between unions, and its a weapon again.
I would say that unions are almost entirely not the reason for forcing manufacturing overseas, but they make for a convenient scapegoat. At worst, they might have accelerated the process. Abusive unions bear more than their fair share of responsibility for this, much as abusive employers bear most of the responsibility for the formation of unions in the first place.
Similarly, offshoring/outsourcing isn't responsible for most of the job loss in the US, but it makes a nice scapegoat.
Companies create real difficulties for employees that go far beyond wages. These difficulties translate into real costs for the employee. Pardon me for caring more about the employee.
Actually, companies use automated manufacturing because of little things like repeatability, cost, speed, and tolerance. A product produced by a highly automated process is nearly always of a higher quality than a hand-assembled product, when produced in the same volume. If the employees hadn't been unionized, the company would have gone to an automated process anyway, because humans can't do what automated manufacturing can.
This is why the plants built overseas still use automated techniques - AM is simply BETTER. If it was solely cost of labor that drove AM, why would they use it overseas, where labor is cheap?
Hey.
For your first example - it's their JOB. Should have called them to do it, its what they get paid for. If the other employees start doing their jobs, then they might lose them. Its just that (unlike you), their contract with their employer states that the employer can't employ someone else to do their work.
The second example is an abusive union, and there's no defense to that, except to say: what about companies that fire employees who bring grievances against management? The problem goes both ways.
Let's say unions didn't exist.
It would still be cheaper to manufacture overseas, because cost-of-living in the US is higher, so workers need to be paid more.
Unions didn't kill manufacturing, the change from skilled manufacturing to unskilled automated manufacturing did.
At which point the other union employees in the country can boycott the union-breakers, and the union-breakers fail.
It will never make economic sense to outsource if the end result is that your major market (the US) turns on you, and this is why unions can stop outsourcing.
No, no.
I miss the name, not the service. I'm fine with the service upgrades, but there was something kind of pleasant about the name Michigan Bell.
At which point (if the unions are working properly), *all* union members everywhere stop using that company's products entirely, and the company fails.
You think UAW workers are going to be ordering new phone service from SBC if CWA goes on general strike, as opposed to this limited strike? Hell no they won't.
And employees are supposed to try to maximize wages and benefits. Which is what unions do.
So STFU with your capitalist argument. Unions are a logical capitalist idea.