I'm not opposed to the existence of Unions, just that I don't want to join one. If people want to voluntarily organize against their employer then that's their right. By similar reasoning, I support right to work (see also anecdote below).
The issue is that the measure("right to work") is indiscriminate in its damage. That is, it hits people who want to independently organize as much as it hits established unions.
There would have to be a measure that allows unions to form by not allowing businesses to roll unions over on technicalities. If the current "right to work" law made both sides argue in good faith(versus a war of attrition and/or a war of technicalities), it might have a better chance. Encourage negotiation on both sides, not total war.
Currently, the only thing that happens is that businesses will use thuggery of their own. That includes agitating the union(in order to create a cause for removing supporters), obstructing them in their actions, false compassion(only to pander for not-so-secret votes), closing the place down when they lose(during negotiations, or to sink the business if they can't get headway), stuffing the ballot by hiring vetted opposition by the truckload, and making borderline if not illegal threats if they vote for it/vote for union friendly candidates in elections(see Walmart's fear of unions). While they aren't always busting heads as once done to exterminate unions in Colorado, they are thugs in suits.
As much money is lost, perhaps it's time to consider military action. Given that they're attempting to hide behind a corrupt jurisdiction and they will not clean house, justification exists. That, and it provides another base of operations that isn't taken by China.
Although I replaced gazillions with a real number.
As opposed to a complex or imaginary number?
:The keys to keeping your job in the economy
on
My Job Went To India
·
· Score: 1
6. Remove the stranglehold that business has on the government. 7. Ensure that what happened in 1980 leaves in 2009.
It's called removing things like Taft-Hartley.
on
My Job Went To India
·
· Score: 1
There are ways of doing it, but they require the mass rejection of business as an untouchable entity and the acceptance of business as a responsible member of the local community. That means that they incur some inescapable penalty that they avoid or pay.
If you're worried about your job, the only job security you'll ever have is if work for the government
Fixed that for you. Businesses do not have "divine right" over an indefinite area. Nor should they have it over the government, or any citizen who wishes to object.
...followed by a completely incompetent answer.
on
My Job Went To India
·
· Score: 1
"This is supported by IBM India now... good luck with debugging with printf"
...who probably know less about it than the Western counterpart.
When product quality and job offshoring were of concern, the economists defended China. When Google and Yahoo were complicit in assisting the Chinese government in its (violation of human rights) deeds, the corporations and some Chinese citizens joined in. When Cafferty of CNN stated a fact, citizens piled on by the busload until CNN caved.
When people find evidence of lip-syncing, mis-representation of one's age(protip: subtract 2 from the gold count for China for true total until stripped), protest zone traps, unremovable pollution, and slave labor, one thing happens. The remaining population of the world capable of defending China in all forms of media does so.
Perhaps those who want to defend China would do well consider one thing. It only will make it easier to build a shibboleth.
If it's my sig, it's about how the policies of Reagan(and his administration) accelerated Detroit's decline. It's a pun on how the pain is supposed to be temporary, but has gone into the second generation. If there was a better way to say it in 120 characters, I'd do so.
It's not just reagan. The democrats are bought and paid. The democratic and republican candidates are chosen before it even gets to you. Those who the corporations do not like are outed from peccadilloes and destroyed.
That part was confirmed years ago with Clinton approving NAFTA(without objection). At least Perot was willing to stand up and show both major parties the consequences(albeit after passage). The surprising part is that he was quite the person who'd be least expected to oppose it.
Reagan did the most damage by signalling that it was open season on union and non-union workers. So far, nobody's made the call to end the 28+ year season. The only thing that Clinton did was to repair the issue with the unions, but ignore the larger impact(by supporting NAFTA).
As for business-hostile politicians - it seems that someone finds some dirt that is normally unreported(see Edwards and Spitzer). Edwards was a threat in the courts(and potentially as an AG for Obama), and Spitzer was a known threat to Wall Street. I'd chalk that up as interesting coincidence.
The problem is when actual quality goes out the window when there are more than enough people willing to pay for it. See the departure of Flexview and the bastardization of the entire Thinkpad line. People went to IBM(and up until the cancellation of the Flexview T60p), Lenovo for quality found nowhere else. Asus can't match it, Dell still can't match it, HP can't match it (they come close, but with no Flexview equivalent), and the lone folks at Fujitsu who only seem to put IPS/AFFS displays on tablets. They may be ex-IBM engineers, but they sure want to drive it to 3rd world junk quality in a hurry.
My largest concern is that the US is forced into accepting cheaper hardware just by being a specialized case of a third world country. That being all in the name of globalization and environmentalism.
They aren't all mobsters and such. Perhaps one needs to know that they generate benefits felt beyond the union itself. Mind that the government these days is just a proxy for worker-hostile business ala Reagan and Thatcher.
I'd say to just remove the anti-union laws (RTW/Taft-Hartley in the US) to help restore the balance between business and worker.
You declare war on the smallish area and take it over before anyone can jump ship. Or you simply wait in secret cooperation with the country in question and wait for the tax-dodgers to come to one's doorstep.
This is no "global economy". It is still quite national. It is merely that the citizen is penalized for supporting one's country.
Labor unions are great at forcing companies and organizations to adopt above-market wages, featherbedding and other money-wasting practices during boom times. Everyone is happy for awhile, and people buy nice homes in the suburbs and sock away money for their kids' college education. Eventually, the industry gets hit by a recession so deep that the viability of most of the participant companies is threatened, and the game is up. The wages and salaries are way too high and the union can't compromise fast enough (since the members have mortgage payments and other commitments) so there are massive layoffs, factory closings, and other downsizing.
Yet proponents of your idea rely on a heavily tilted to business, union hostile government to have this happen. Otherwise they'd actually have to listen in good faith to unions. They couldn't just wreck the corporation to kill union support. They couldn't flood the ballot with hired yes-men. They couldn't use the judicial system against the unions by instigating violations. They couldn't turn their "secret ballot" into what is simply a business friendly form of card check.
Moral: do not rely on unions to insulate you from the effect of....
That's mostly due to the effect of Taft-Hartley and "RTW" both existing. Remove both and the balance is restored.
Try again when business can't be adversarial to the idea.
America is about change. The USA is the dragon of cultures, thriving on the human dynamism of constant change, and my Republicans need to be the party that embraces it. We are the party that has opened the borders to free trade and have asked the American people to live through the changes that it causes, and in doing so we should live up to our own ideals and not fear the changes brought about by the free flow of people as well as capital.
Unfortunately people get annoyed and will fight to preserve their nation. They are justified in any action that threatens them and gives them little more than the ability to buy junk that's likely to kill them.
Come back when the Taft-Hartley Act is repealed if you want to talk about "freedom".
I'm for low wages, low prices and junk that will kill me.
Fixed that for you.
Then they break the law, and do not offer the same protections and legitimate compensation to their employees. They take wildly inappropriate a salaries while in some cases overseeing catastrophic losses in their businesses (eg. Home Depot) and there so far seems to be nothing we can do to stop them. The legal class finds ways to get around any laws restricting executive abuses.
Thanks to the policies of Reagan, that's what's happening today. Regulation without loopholes can fix it.
The problem won't solve itself. Lower unemployment here will collapse prices. Higher employment of foreign nationals will cause their wages to come up.
On the other hand, you can do something to protect the nation, and have foreign nationals perpetually on the wrong side.
I've seen the complaint many times. The problem is that in the US their is a shortage of IT education. Most universities have CS programs but as you said yourself CS is not about programming or IT, and yet we encourage people who want to program or do IT to get CS degrees. What we really need are vocational IT degrees.
Only if the Taft-Hartley Act is permanently repealed, and unions are allowed to form.
Open the boarders - but require these truly need professionals be given Green Card. Improve the labor pool. Also hold the payscale up. Because now they are competing fairly.
If we employ protectionism, jobs will get offshored and that screws us by putting downward pressure on wages at home
Only if you don't cut off the financial and legal exits. Otherwise, it encourages places to work by the rules.
You're right that having people here keeps more money in our economy, but that's like saying, "well they put a boot in our ass but at least it wasn't a steel-toed boot."
If they don't play by the rules (or pull what Grigsby and Cohen do), they cannot just be outside of our jurisdiction. That is why managed trade is preferred over whoring our nation.
If there's any solution, it probably involves draconian protectionism.
The US may be able to get that starting in 2009. It may not be pleasant, but it is what the nation needs. What was started in the worker-hostile 80's is only going to be cleaned up in the near future if not today.
Free trade in people/labor is little different than free trade in goods and services. If the latter is good for everyone (except the domestic producers of that product) then how can the former be bad?
Goods don't complain when they're on the low end. That is a significant difference and one that cannot be ignored. That's why our nation is kicking "free trade" out where it can, and will continue to do so in 2009.
Labor can be restricted to domestic and selected foreign goods from "safe" producers. You seal all the exits and close all the loopholes. When companies are held responsible for every domestic employee and their re-education, they will not be able to just "sink the ship and go elsewhere".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not opposed to the existence of Unions, just that I don't want to join one. If people want to voluntarily organize against their employer then that's their right. By similar reasoning, I support right to work (see also anecdote below).
The issue is that the measure("right to work") is indiscriminate in its damage. That is, it hits people who want to independently organize as much as it hits established unions.
There would have to be a measure that allows unions to form by not allowing businesses to roll unions over on technicalities. If the current "right to work" law made both sides argue in good faith(versus a war of attrition and/or a war of technicalities), it might have a better chance. Encourage negotiation on both sides, not total war.
Currently, the only thing that happens is that businesses will use thuggery of their own. That includes agitating the union(in order to create a cause for removing supporters), obstructing them in their actions, false compassion(only to pander for not-so-secret votes), closing the place down when they lose(during negotiations, or to sink the business if they can't get headway), stuffing the ballot by hiring vetted opposition by the truckload, and making borderline if not illegal threats if they vote for it/vote for union friendly candidates in elections(see Walmart's fear of unions). While they aren't always busting heads as once done to exterminate unions in Colorado, they are thugs in suits.
Well, expel him and encourage other countries to do so. If they continue, invade and get rid of the problem.
As much money is lost, perhaps it's time to consider military action. Given that they're attempting to hide behind a corrupt jurisdiction and they will not clean house, justification exists. That, and it provides another base of operations that isn't taken by China.
Welcome to Slashdot, Mr. Samaranch. Your reputation precedes and succeeds you.
If I'm the IOC, what am I supposed to do
Tell Rogge to not go for election again?
Although I replaced gazillions with a real number.
As opposed to a complex or imaginary number?
6. Remove the stranglehold that business has on the government.
7. Ensure that what happened in 1980 leaves in 2009.
There are ways of doing it, but they require the mass rejection of business as an untouchable entity and the acceptance of business as a responsible member of the local community. That means that they incur some inescapable penalty that they avoid or pay.
If you're worried about your job, the only job security you'll ever have is if work for the government
Fixed that for you. Businesses do not have "divine right" over an indefinite area. Nor should they have it over the government, or any citizen who wishes to object.
"This is supported by IBM India now ... good luck with debugging with printf"
...who probably know less about it than the Western counterpart.
Remove the loopholes that enable offshoring, and ensure that businesses cannot exit the US when faced with regulation.
When product quality and job offshoring were of concern, the economists defended China.
When Google and Yahoo were complicit in assisting the Chinese government in its (violation of human rights) deeds, the corporations and some Chinese citizens joined in.
When Cafferty of CNN stated a fact, citizens piled on by the busload until CNN caved.
When people find evidence of lip-syncing, mis-representation of one's age(protip: subtract 2 from the gold count for China for true total until stripped), protest zone traps, unremovable pollution, and slave labor, one thing happens. The remaining population of the world capable of defending China in all forms of media does so.
Perhaps those who want to defend China would do well consider one thing. It only will make it easier to build a shibboleth.
Your last sentence is incomprehensible...
If it's my sig, it's about how the policies of Reagan(and his administration) accelerated Detroit's decline. It's a pun on how the pain is supposed to be temporary, but has gone into the second generation. If there was a better way to say it in 120 characters, I'd do so.
It's not just reagan. The democrats are bought and paid. The democratic and republican candidates are chosen before it even gets to you. Those who the corporations do not like are outed from peccadilloes and destroyed.
That part was confirmed years ago with Clinton approving NAFTA(without objection). At least Perot was willing to stand up and show both major parties the consequences(albeit after passage). The surprising part is that he was quite the person who'd be least expected to oppose it.
Reagan did the most damage by signalling that it was open season on union and non-union workers. So far, nobody's made the call to end the 28+ year season. The only thing that Clinton did was to repair the issue with the unions, but ignore the larger impact(by supporting NAFTA).
As for business-hostile politicians - it seems that someone finds some dirt that is normally unreported(see Edwards and Spitzer). Edwards was a threat in the courts(and potentially as an AG for Obama), and Spitzer was a known threat to Wall Street. I'd chalk that up as interesting coincidence.
The others would rather put China on top.
The problem is when actual quality goes out the window when there are more than enough people willing to pay for it. See the departure of Flexview and the bastardization of the entire Thinkpad line. People went to IBM(and up until the cancellation of the Flexview T60p), Lenovo for quality found nowhere else. Asus can't match it, Dell still can't match it, HP can't match it (they come close, but with no Flexview equivalent), and the lone folks at Fujitsu who only seem to put IPS/AFFS displays on tablets. They may be ex-IBM engineers, but they sure want to drive it to 3rd world junk quality in a hurry.
My largest concern is that the US is forced into accepting cheaper hardware just by being a specialized case of a third world country. That being all in the name of globalization and environmentalism.
Well, that's a breath of fresh air to hear truth.
It's a shame that we've had to endure it. Perhaps 2009 will reverse it.
They aren't all mobsters and such. Perhaps one needs to know that they generate benefits felt beyond the union itself. Mind that the government these days is just a proxy for worker-hostile business ala Reagan and Thatcher.
I'd say to just remove the anti-union laws (RTW/Taft-Hartley in the US) to help restore the balance between business and worker.
Otherwise...
You declare war on the smallish area and take it over before anyone can jump ship. Or you simply wait in secret cooperation with the country in question and wait for the tax-dodgers to come to one's doorstep.
This is no "global economy". It is still quite national. It is merely that the citizen is penalized for supporting one's country.
Labor unions are great at forcing companies and organizations to adopt above-market wages, featherbedding and other money-wasting practices during boom times. Everyone is happy for awhile, and people buy nice homes in the suburbs and sock away money for their kids' college education. Eventually, the industry gets hit by a recession so deep that the viability of most of the participant companies is threatened, and the game is up. The wages and salaries are way too high and the union can't compromise fast enough (since the members have mortgage payments and other commitments) so there are massive layoffs, factory closings, and other downsizing.
Yet proponents of your idea rely on a heavily tilted to business, union hostile government to have this happen. Otherwise they'd actually have to listen in good faith to unions. They couldn't just wreck the corporation to kill union support. They couldn't flood the ballot with hired yes-men. They couldn't use the judicial system against the unions by instigating violations. They couldn't turn their "secret ballot" into what is simply a business friendly form of card check.
Moral: do not rely on unions to insulate you from the effect of ....
That's mostly due to the effect of Taft-Hartley and "RTW" both existing. Remove both and the balance is restored.
Try again when business can't be adversarial to the idea.
America is about change. The USA is the dragon of cultures, thriving on the human dynamism of constant change, and my Republicans need to be the party that embraces it. We are the party that has opened the borders to free trade and have asked the American people to live through the changes that it causes, and in doing so we should live up to our own ideals and not fear the changes brought about by the free flow of people as well as capital.
Unfortunately people get annoyed and will fight to preserve their nation. They are justified in any action that threatens them and gives them little more than the ability to buy junk that's likely to kill them.
Come back when the Taft-Hartley Act is repealed if you want to talk about "freedom".
Is our government saying no jobs for Americans at all costs?
Only if you don't peek behind the curtain and see that businesses acting like $DEITY are pulling the strings.
I'm for low wages, low prices and junk that will kill me.
Fixed that for you.
Then they break the law, and do not offer the same protections and legitimate compensation to their employees. They take wildly inappropriate a salaries while in some cases overseeing catastrophic losses in their businesses (eg. Home Depot) and there so far seems to be nothing we can do to stop them. The legal class finds ways to get around any laws restricting executive abuses.
Thanks to the policies of Reagan, that's what's happening today. Regulation without loopholes can fix it.
The problem won't solve itself. Lower unemployment here will collapse prices. Higher employment of foreign nationals will cause their wages to come up.
On the other hand, you can do something to protect the nation, and have foreign nationals perpetually on the wrong side.
I've seen the complaint many times. The problem is that in the US their is a shortage of IT education. Most universities have CS programs but as you said yourself CS is not about programming or IT, and yet we encourage people who want to program or do IT to get CS degrees. What we really need are vocational IT degrees.
Only if the Taft-Hartley Act is permanently repealed, and unions are allowed to form.
Open the boarders - but require these truly need professionals be given Green Card. Improve the labor pool. Also hold the payscale up. Because now they are competing fairly.
Do you work for these guys?
Open borders only encourages this kind of activity, which must be stopped.
If we employ protectionism, jobs will get offshored and that screws us by putting downward pressure on wages at home
Only if you don't cut off the financial and legal exits. Otherwise, it encourages places to work by the rules.
You're right that having people here keeps more money in our economy, but that's like saying, "well they put a boot in our ass but at least it wasn't a steel-toed boot."
If they don't play by the rules (or pull what Grigsby and Cohen do), they cannot just be outside of our jurisdiction. That is why managed trade is preferred over whoring our nation.
If there's any solution, it probably involves draconian protectionism.
The US may be able to get that starting in 2009. It may not be pleasant, but it is what the nation needs. What was started in the worker-hostile 80's is only going to be cleaned up in the near future if not today.
Free trade in people/labor is little different than free trade in goods and services. If the latter is good for everyone (except the domestic producers of that product) then how can the former be bad?
Goods don't complain when they're on the low end.
That is a significant difference and one that cannot be ignored. That's why our nation is kicking "free trade" out where it can, and will continue to do so in 2009.
Labor can be restricted to domestic and selected foreign goods from "safe" producers. You seal all the exits and close all the loopholes. When companies are held responsible for every domestic employee and their re-education, they will not be able to just "sink the ship and go elsewhere".