Ok, so I guess I'm doing all of my comments as new posts until I can figure out what's wrong. So here goes.
Here's the short version of my response to Chuck, cause I'm not typing all of that again:
Yes, there is a "controversy" over the war, obviously. I didn't think that's what you meant. If that's what you meant, then you were basically saying I should be talking about the war instead of your legal ads. Well, ok. We've talked plenty about the war on here.
I was saying that I didn't think the protests themselves were very controversial. Nobody is trying to keep anyone from doing it (either them or you), and nobody seems terribly excited about either group of protesters. That's all.
Anyway, send your ad if you find it; I'm still curious.
On to other things, it's Labor Day, and with it comes the news that Athens firefighters might be forming a union.
All for now; enjoy the rest of your day off.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blogroll
Labels
- 10th Congressional District
- ACC Commission
- Athens Banner-Herald
- Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- barry fleming
- Bill Shipp
- Blake Aued
- bobby saxon
- Bong Hits 4 Jesus
- David Poythress
- DPG
- Drinkin'
- drought
- Dubose Porter
- education
- Elton
- flounder
- Glenn Richardson
- GlennTax
- Heidi
- jerry keen
- jim marshall
- Jim Thompson
- JMac
- john barrow
- Johnny Isakson
- National Guard
- paul broun
- poverty
- rand knight
- really?
- roundup
- Saxby Chambliss
- SCHIP
- Sonny Perdue
- stache
- the flem
- tondees tavern
- U.S. Senate
- Voter ID
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(202)
-
▼
September
(16)
- On the other hand...
- Name Calling
- Heidi on the Radio...
- ''Sweatin" the Judge's race....
- Heidi/Charlie blurbs...
- From the Culpepper Campaign...
- Commission Candidates debate at the Chamber of Com...
- The Swift Boating of John Barrow
- What's on YOUR "Sonny Do" list?
- Earl and Eddie and John
- And we're back! (cue the radio "zinger")
- Never Surrender
- I quit!
- Arg!
- Response to Chuckie, etc.
- Gameday, Bitches!
-
▼
September
(16)
17 comments:
why don't y'all just email each other?
Good idea.
I totally support the idea of a firefighters' union - it just makes perfect sense to me. I think the "Rule of 80" should be applied to them. These are hard working people who risk their lives on a daily basis, why are they only receiving $125 per month in pension? I use $125 a WEEK just for gas and food.
Um, yes.
While it's true, broadly speaking, that government work ain't capitalism, it's also true what andyrusk pointed out: work is work. It may be that unions were formed at some point, at some places, to ensure that workers were not exploited when it came to the distribution of profit, it needn't be the case that, therefore, all unions forevermore must be for a just distribution of profit.
Would you, dawg, accept that a union can have as an interest making the workplace safer or more hospitable for the workers? Is this a good thing or an unnecessary thing?
I am confused, though, about the "on my dime" comment. What is the implicit conclusion to draw from this? Is it that, by becoming organized, workers will draw more from that dime and thereby decrease the amount available for the production of government services?
It is every working man and woman's right to determine what their labor is worth.
Absolutely. But why do you need a union? To keep your current job, instead of sending a message to your employer by selling your labor to anohter bidder. Is that lazy, or lack of risk-taking?
And why have unions become as big a business as exists anywhere in the US?
If you want to go on strike, go ahead. But why shouldn't your employer hire others to do the work that you won't do?
You need a union because it is right to pay your workers a fair wage. And because, un-united, workers have pretty much no power. Shouldn't there be some sort of balance between employer and employed?
You need a union because it is right to pay your workers a fair wage.
So, it's a moral issue?
And because, un-united, workers have pretty much no power.
Well, get your fellow workers to agree with you, and you can all walk out together. But then why should your employer go out of business because you refuse to work?
Shouldn't there be some sort of balance between employer and employed?
Sure. The employer offers a wage, and the employee offers labor. Each has something the other needs. If they cannot agree on mutually satisfactory terms, then they should not enter into a contract.
Name one industry that's gone belly up because their employees unionized.
I assume this question is meant for me...please note I never said ~industry~, I said ~employer~. There's a difference.
Just think, if a group of employees band together to force a bad employer out of business, then an opening occurs in the market. Someone will step in to fill that opening, and the workers will be the ones with the necessary knowledge to produce that product.
Union's protect worker's rights, plain and simple.
No, workers protect worker's rights.
You go to the foreman and ask him and he tells you that the acid ain't hazardous. You look it up on the internet and it's known to cause cancer in California, but not in Michigan.
No, you look it up on the MSDS posted at the site where the chemical is used. If there's no MSDS, you call OSHA. Otherwise, the MSDS rules.
What do you do? Quit? When it's the only place in town that's hiring?
Yep. If that's what it takes. If your employer is screwing you, they are screwing all the employees. All of you can quit, and put him out of business. Or you can quit, and save your life. If you have marketable skills, you will be reemployed. If not, get new skills. I never stop learning new things - my employer could disappear overnight, but I will still be here, and I will be able to make a good living.
On the other end of the coin, why should I be ~forced~ to give money to a union, which then uses my money to lobby for a cause in which I do not believe? Where, then, is my right to keep my job with the only employer in town that's hiring? Who is protecting my rights in that case?
Once upon a time, unions served a valuable purpose. Some unions today still do so. But many others are in the union business solely because it is lucrative and confers power, just like many politicians. There are some remarkable parallels between union officials and state and congressioanl leaders. This is what I find disturbing.
I know about Ludlow. And some places in Wyoming as well. Still, it's ~your~ responsibility to learn, and your decision to make. Do you put up with the conditions, or do you quit? I know it's harder what you don't have the support of family, money or connections, but nothing is guaranteed. And sometimes cliches have a basis in fact.
As an individual, I know what is right and wrong for me. If I can convince my fellow workers, fine. If I can't, well it's their own lookout, isn't it? You'll never get ahead if you don't pay attention...
So, it's a moral issue?
Yes. It is. It's also a power issue and obviously it's an economic issue, but do you think it's right for an employer _not_ to pay his/her employees a fair wage?
Sidebar: Did anyone read the piece in the New Yorker about dependency ratios with regard to benefits paid? It argues that the number of those working for a company relative to the number of those retired (often because the industry has become more efficient) is the biggest factor in those companies' being able or not to pay the pensions etc. they promised. Not that the pensions were overly generous.
Yes. It is [a moral issue]. It's also a power issue and obviously it's an economic issue, but do you think it's right for an employer _not_ to pay his/her employees a fair wage?
It's impossible for an employer to pay anything less than a fair wage, when both parties enter into a working relationship with eyes open. As long as you aren't a slave, you took the job freely, knowing the pay rate before you started. You are free to quit at any time.
The Sago Mine in West Vriginia, the one that blew up in 2006 killing 12 men, had logged 276 MSHA violations over the preceding two years, and been fined only $24,374. That's about $156 per violation. MSHA's enforcement record is pretty dismal. So is OSHA's.
So, it seems that the enforcement of existing regulations is lacking, as is the incentive to correct problems. 276 violations should have shut the place down. Clearly, the union that represented those mine workers was right in the thick of things, protecting their interests.
They did quit in Ludlow, and JP Morgan turned machine guns on 'em, and the US Army stood there and watched 'em do it.
Are you suggesting that the Colorado Coalfield War is typical of employee-employer relations?
Hey Publius,
How about have a thread for everybody to go around and make predictions about what percentage each candidate will get? What do you say?
It's impossible for an employer to pay anything less than a fair wage, when both parties enter into a working relationship with eyes open. As long as you aren't a slave, you took the job freely, knowing the pay rate before you started. You are free to quit at any time.
Economics doesn't actually work in a vacuum like this. People need to eat and take care of their kids.
Isn't that kind of what a union does?
Yep. Now you're getting there...
Economics doesn't actually work in a vacuum like this. People need to eat and take care of their kids.
Yes, and people need to be able to afford to eat and take care of their kids.
Are we still disagreeing?
Unions also protect lazy workers.
Post a Comment