Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

The wreck chasing lawyer?
"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

For the first half or so of the last century I totally agree with you. But
over the last 25 years or so, they've been guilty of taking more more more.
Its done a lot to make US industry not able to compete with the rest of the
world and exporting all our manufacturing out of the country. Of course
there's been some pretty lousy management in the same companies making this
situation even worse.

karl

On Nov 16, 2:07 pm, Millwright Ron wrote:
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

Unions have made more men lazy than any other invention of man.

A good bro cannot get fired after he has been a union member a few
days.

Millwright Ron wrote:

With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.


As a former employee of a tier one automotive oem I can honestly say, every
gain the big three UAW made came on the backs of the supplier base.

Unions exploited non union and union employees of other companies down the
line. Trickle down. AKA ****ing on everyone else. The local Lear UAW
plant is gone along with my non union job that got squeezed to make sure
those UAW workers got their benefits.

My brother was a member of the IBEW. Left the union and cut them a check
for training when he went out on his own. There is a requirement to work so
long to pay for training. He paid them in cash. They called him a scab.
Now he sees a lot of unions guys scabbing to feed their faces and they never
reimbursed the union for training.

He is now a licensed Master with a Michigan Electrical Contractor License
and is working.

I worked for 29 days in a union plant. One more day I'd had to join the
union and in 5-7 years I might have had a chance to take a maintenance
position for 5 bucks an hour than I made starting out in a non union plant.

Wes

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

Oh, Ron...thank GOD for the UNIONS!!!! I'm so glad that you keep bringing
up the subject, we all need to continually contemplate the huge benefits
that unions have brought to us. Manufacturing in the US was getting way out
of line, it's such a good thing that we forced them overseas. We NEED the
least productive worker to set the pace of what's left of production, if
they make too much stuff too inexpensively, the prices will go down...we
can't have that! We don't want to compete with our foreign friends now do
we? And, we don't want those nasty employers to make any profits that they
would invest, modernize and provide more jobs...we want those jobs to go
overseas to deserving foreign workers. And, let's not forget that without
the unions, organized crime figures would have to rely on just their drug
and prostitution income. Yep...thank GOD for unions!

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
et...

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

Oh, Ron...thank GOD for the UNIONS!!!! I'm so glad that you keep bringing
up the subject, we all need to continually contemplate the huge benefits
that unions have brought to us. Manufacturing in the US was getting way
out of line, it's such a good thing that we forced them overseas. We NEED
the least productive worker to set the pace of what's left of production,
if they make too much stuff too inexpensively, the prices will go
down...we can't have that! We don't want to compete with our foreign
friends now do we? And, we don't want those nasty employers to make any
profits that they would invest, modernize and provide more jobs...we want
those jobs to go overseas to deserving foreign workers. And, let's not
forget that without the unions, organized crime figures would have to rely
on just their drug and prostitution income. Yep...thank GOD for unions!

A big tip of the hat to you, sir.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
et...

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

Oh, Ron...thank GOD for the UNIONS!!!! I'm so glad that you keep bringing
up the subject, we all need to continually contemplate the huge benefits
that unions have brought to us. Manufacturing in the US was getting way
out of line, it's such a good thing that we forced them overseas. We NEED
the least productive worker to set the pace of what's left of production,
if they make too much stuff too inexpensively, the prices will go
down...we can't have that! We don't want to compete with our foreign
friends now do we? And, we don't want those nasty employers to make any
profits that they would invest, modernize and provide more jobs...we want
those jobs to go overseas to deserving foreign workers. And, let's not
forget that without the unions, organized crime figures would have to rely
on just their drug and prostitution income. Yep...thank GOD for unions!


Halleluiah!

Very well said, Tom. Makes a believer out of even me, a guy that swore he
couldn't be swayed to become a union member. You've made them sound so
good, I can no longer resist. Where do I sign up?

Harold

And the propaganda to enlist new members for a dying entity goes
on..................

On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, "*" wrote:
And the propaganda to enlist new members for a dying entity goes
on..................

Here a new produce employee at the local, union controled, grocery
store gets $8.50 an hour and Pays $600 every 6 monthss in union dues.
Karl

Give us the details, prove it!

wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, "*" wrote:
And the propaganda to enlist new members for a dying entity goes
on..................

Here a new produce employee at the local, union controled, grocery
store gets $8.50 an hour and Pays $600 every 6 monthss in union dues.
Karl

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:51:14 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Al"
quickly quoth:

Give us the details, prove it!

Hell, my first job paid $2.35/hr and the union took $0.63/hr of it
away for dues. That would have worked out to over $100/month back in
1969 if I'd been working 40 hour weeks. I can't imagine how much the
unions are getting from the wages nowadays, but the $100/month Karl
mentioned is definitely a lowball figure.

Larry, Boxboy Extraordinaire for the Teamsters and Alpha Beta Market.

--
After all, it is those who have a deep and real inner life who
are best able to deal with the irritating details of outer life.
-- Evelyn Underhill

I was a member of the same union in 1967 and my dues weren't that high! I
just dug out my dues card from Retail Clerks (now UFCW) #770 my dues were
$38 per quarter.

The members set the dues in a local union by the union's bylaws,
constitution, and federal law.

If the dues were so high where you were, why didn't you change it? Or did
you just want to wait 40 years and complain?

Yes, it's true, memory can be faulty for all of us but I still have the
receipts/ dues card from that union and that was the best money that I ever
spent!!!

I'm sorry for your experience. But the truth is that like most
organizations a union is as good as it's members. It worked and still works
for me. I and my brothers and sisters work hard and earn every dollar we
get but we still have family health care and a pension I can bank on! How
about you??

AND my union continues to grow!

Al


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:51:14 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Al"
quickly quoth:

Give us the details, prove it!

Hell, my first job paid $2.35/hr and the union took $0.63/hr of it
away for dues. That would have worked out to over $100/month back in
1969 if I'd been working 40 hour weeks. I can't imagine how much the
unions are getting from the wages nowadays, but the $100/month Karl
mentioned is definitely a lowball figure.

Larry, Boxboy Extraordinaire for the Teamsters and Alpha Beta Market.

--
After all, it is those who have a deep and real inner life who
are best able to deal with the irritating details of outer life.
-- Evelyn Underhill

On Nov 18, 5:51 am, "Al" wrote:
Give us the details, prove it!

wrote in message

...



On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, "*" wrote:
And the propaganda to enlist new members for a dying entity goes
on..................

Here a new produce employee at the local, union controled, grocery
store gets $8.50 an hour and Pays $600 every 6 monthss in union dues.
Karl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Having gotten the inforrmation 2nd hand and not really caring to apply
for the job just to see what they'd offer me feel free to check it out
yourself. It's the new Safeway in Honolulu,HI
Karl

Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.

Many will never understand the real reason for a labor union. Most think
that it is only about wages & benefits. While what it IS about is MORE
about real a "voice" in the work place. Most Americans are proud of our
"written" Bill-of-Rights & the Constitution. What many don't realize is
that it doesn't apply in the workplace (outside of any state laws and
federal laws to protect workers. As far as the Constitution is concerned,
without a union, you have no "freedom" of speech, assembly, or any other
"right" in the workplace. If you don't like it, without a union, you can
quit (or get fired!)!

A free and powerful (equally with business) labor movement is essential to
democracy. Maybe that's the real reason for the decline of the American
middle class along with many of our "freedoms". With a vibrant labor
movement we would be moving the other way on the scale between the 2 extreme
"classes" we are approaching.

This rant will be like a ripple in the ocean in this newsgroup but I only
come here for machining information. How sad for "those that just won't
see"!

Done!

Al


"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron

"Al" wrote in message
...
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.

Many will never understand the real reason for a labor union. Most think
that it is only about wages & benefits. While what it IS about is MORE
about real a "voice" in the work place. Most Americans are proud of our
"written" Bill-of-Rights & the Constitution. What many don't realize is
that it doesn't apply in the workplace (outside of any state laws and
federal laws to protect workers. As far as the Constitution is concerned,
without a union, you have no "freedom" of speech, assembly, or any other
"right" in the workplace. If you don't like it, without a union, you can
quit (or get fired!)!

A free and powerful (equally with business) labor movement is essential to
democracy. Maybe that's the real reason for the decline of the American
middle class along with many of our "freedoms". With a vibrant labor
movement we would be moving the other way on the scale between the 2
extreme "classes" we are approaching.

This rant will be like a ripple in the ocean in this newsgroup but I only
come here for machining information. How sad for "those that just won't
see"!

Done!

Al


"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron




Unions are bullies - organized.

They produce nothing but rhetoric and they degrade the effectiveness of the
compaines that are forced to live with them.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

See what I mean? A waste of time!!


"Mark Dunning" wrote in message
...

"Al" wrote in message
...
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.

Many will never understand the real reason for a labor union. Most think
that it is only about wages & benefits. While what it IS about is MORE
about real a "voice" in the work place. Most Americans are proud of our
"written" Bill-of-Rights & the Constitution. What many don't realize is
that it doesn't apply in the workplace (outside of any state laws and
federal laws to protect workers. As far as the Constitution is
concerned, without a union, you have no "freedom" of speech, assembly, or
any other "right" in the workplace. If you don't like it, without a
union, you can quit (or get fired!)!

A free and powerful (equally with business) labor movement is essential
to democracy. Maybe that's the real reason for the decline of the
American middle class along with many of our "freedoms". With a vibrant
labor movement we would be moving the other way on the scale between the
2 extreme "classes" we are approaching.

This rant will be like a ripple in the ocean in this newsgroup but I only
come here for machining information. How sad for "those that just won't
see"!

Done!

Al


"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...
Clarence Darrow:
With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than
any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more
for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the
race, for the developing of character in men, than any other
association of men.

Millwright Ron




Unions are bullies - organized.

They produce nothing but rhetoric and they degrade the effectiveness of
the compaines that are forced to live with them.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

"Al" wrote in message
...
See what I mean? A waste of time!!

Oh my, somebody doesn't agree with you...a waste of time! I'm glad you've
had such a wonderful union experience. There are millions and millions of
workers that owe their jobs to American unions...those workers are overseas
now. Did they install the blinders when you joined a union or did you?

"Al" wrote in message
...
snip-----

How sad for "those that just won't
see"!


Indeed! I was about to post the same message, for "those that just won't
see".

My life experiences have been diametrically opposed to yours, from all
indications. I had no need for those great brothers and sisters that bust
their hump, as you suggested. Those that surrounded me when I was employed
in a union shop were masters at doing nothing and making themselves appear
to be useful. Their reward was killing the job----which closed, never to
reopen again. It's a way of life with people like that, coasting along on
the sweat and toil of others, and through their convoluted thinking
concluding they're endlessly the victim, and convincing themselves that
they are contributing, when, for the most part, they're an anchor, dragging
down those around them that earn their way.

We see just fine-----we simply don't like what we see, and I'm surprised you
see it differently. How sad for you.

Harold

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:49:25 -0800, "Al"
wrote:

Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.

Many will never understand the real reason for a labor union. Most think
that it is only about wages & benefits. While what it IS about is MORE
about real a "voice" in the work place. Most Americans are proud of our
"written" Bill-of-Rights & the Constitution. What many don't realize is
that it doesn't apply in the workplace (outside of any state laws and
federal laws to protect workers. As far as the Constitution is concerned,
without a union, you have no "freedom" of speech, assembly, or any other
"right" in the workplace. If you don't like it, without a union, you can
quit (or get fired!)!

That is precisely right, and it says a lot about you that you use that
as an argument to support your cause.

Look at it from the employer's perspective. They have invested the
time, money and energy to not simply build a building and stuff it
full of tools, but to find and woo potential clients, and determine
the most effective way they can to produce the product they are
making. They are there to earn money, not to provide you with a job.
Your job is the after effect of their initial sacrifices in time and
capital. Without their efforts, you would have no job to assert your
"rights" in, and your vaunted freedoms would more than likely be
asserted in an empty field. The size and wealth of the company you
work for is a direct reflection of the ability of the man or woman who
formed it, and they deserve, by right, to gain the greater share of
the profits- as well as tell you what you may and may not do in their
company. What you do on your own time is what is protected by civil
law- when you are punched in and being paid, you are a tool that must
perform it's function within established parameters, or you can expect
to be sent out to the curb to be collected with the rest of the trash.

What did you do to earn any "right" to tell an owner of private
property how they must dispose of that property? You are 100%
correct- in a workplace, you have no right to freedom of speech or
assembly. You are there to do your job, and you can choose to do it,
with all that entails, or not. If you choose not to do your job, you
have no right to ask for anything. If you do your job, you have
nothing to fear. If you don't like the way things are going in your
workplace, you have the same right that you would have as a guest in
my home- if you don't like what is happening, your only legitimate
recourse is to vote with your feet, and get the hell out of my face.

That pressure to perform or perish is what makes us strong. The
"virtue" of protecting weakness, laziness, and unearned vanity is one
of the most abhorrant ideals to ever have been saddled on humankind.
Not only does it punish those who struggle to carve thier niche, but
it also punishes those who are the supposed beneficiaries by allowing
them to coast through their lives without ever finding their own
measure through struggle. They end up as gray lumps of unworked
material, dull and lifeless- when in a different situation, and faced
with pressures they may not have chosen, life may have forged them
into a sharp and gleaming sword. Nobody reaches their full potential
in the absence of struggle.

While I may agree that some employers are not worthy of respect and
admiration, many are. If you find yourself in a situation where your
particular employer is not worthy of your time and efforts for
whatever reason, it is incumbant on you to find another- or to develop
the means and methods to employ yourself and others. In no case is it
sensible or even desirable to force the hand that feeds you to obey
your whims simply because you seek to avoid effort.

A free and powerful (equally with business) labor movement is essential to
democracy. Maybe that's the real reason for the decline of the American
middle class along with many of our "freedoms". With a vibrant labor
movement we would be moving the other way on the scale between the 2 extreme
"classes" we are approaching.

Maybe if there was such a thing as a vibrant labor movement, you'd be
right. But what I see is a bunch of whining prats who seek to earn
rewards without expending effort. Take a hard look at your extreme
"classes" How many people do you know who do not own at least one
television, a car, a place to live, adequate food and clothing, clean
drinking water, and any number of other luxuries? Just because nobody
provided you with a limosine and a private jet to make you *feel*
special, that doesn't mean you are being abused- and if you are being
abused, then it is not only your right, but your duty as a free man,
to find another way to earn your bread.

This rant will be like a ripple in the ocean in this newsgroup but I only
come here for machining information. How sad for "those that just won't
see"!

The problem is that we *do* see. We see what you're advocating, and
that it is precisely the way you describe it. The difference is one
of morality. I don't feel that I have any right to gather up a posse
and force the guy who signs my paycheck to do what I want him to do-
you do. Better hope you actually *do* know what is best for your
company before you start making demands, or you are slitting your own
throats as well.

Prometheus,

That was one exceptionally well written response. Saved it
to my R.C.M. folder!

I have never tried to force any significant changes upon any
employer. If I don't like the way I'm being treated, I tried
to address this fact. If the situation wasn't resolved, I
left. Sometimes this took a while, but I just sucked it up
best I could until I found something better.


Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
Prometheus,

That was one exceptionally well written response. Saved it to my R.C.M.
folder!

I have never tried to force any significant changes upon any
employer. If I don't like the way I'm being treated, I tried
to address this fact. If the situation wasn't resolved, I
left. Sometimes this took a while, but I just sucked it up
best I could until I found something better.


Jon

Yep------same in my case. When I found conditions less than appealing, I
moved on.

Moved on, to me, became working for myself. I know my capabilities, and I
know I'm reliable. I also function best under trying conditions----without
a moron giving me senseless instructions.

I have never understood the concept of an employee expecting his share of
the spoils from his place of employment. Didn't he get that when he
accepted his job? Wasn't his pay his reward? What right would anyone
have in earned profits when they had invested nothing in their job aside
from a lunch box?

If an employee expects to share in profits, are they equally as prepared to
turn back some or all of their pay if the project turns negative, and there
are no profits? If not------why not? What is the employee risking in
a venture where they contract to sell their time to the employer?

I'm of the opinion that unions are the downfall of humanity-------for they
reward the deadbeats and punish those that contribute. Sort of sounds like
the US government these days, eh?

Thanks, Prometheus-------very eloquently stated.

Harold

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

Moved on, to me, became working for myself. I know my capabilities, and I
know I'm reliable.

Same here, 10 years now. The fact that I'm not doing very
well is due to chosing to live where I want to, which is not
a good place for manufacturing, or most any other productive
business outside of building and selling palacial mansions
for city slickers....

I have never understood the concept of an employee expecting his share of
the spoils from his place of employment. Didn't he get that when he
accepted his job? Wasn't his pay his reward? What right would anyone
have in earned profits when they had invested nothing in their job aside
from a lunch box?

Place I worked at for 9 years, had it's ups and downs. Few
times I think I ought to have punched my boss and left, but
there were good things too. I was employee #4 in a company
that went on to employ 70 some workers. I remember when
times were slow, boss borrowed money from his folks to make
payroll. Not wanting to lose skilled workers, he'd have
someone move a machine to sweep the floor underneath, paint
the walls - again, or dust off the tops of light fixtures.
More than a few times he'd spend long hours at night or
weekends fixing his cars because he couldn't afford to pay a
shop.

As the company grew and was starting to really do well, he
bought his wife a new car. Right away the bitching
starts.... "He buys his wife a new car and I haven't had a
raise in 8 months..."
An oft heard refrain was, "I'll work harder if he gives me a
raise".

Sometimes it was a toss up which I despised more, my boss or
some of my coworkers....

Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
Prometheus,

That was one exceptionally well written response. Saved it to my R.C.M.
folder!

I have never tried to force any significant changes upon any
employer. If I don't like the way I'm being treated, I tried
to address this fact. If the situation wasn't resolved, I
left. Sometimes this took a while, but I just sucked it up
best I could until I found something better.


Jon

I have the following philosophical outlook on life:

EVERYONE IS EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO BE, DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO, WITH EXACTLY WHO THEY WANT TO BE WITH AT ANY MOMENT IN THEIR LIFE.
WHENEVER THEY DON'T WANT ONE OF THESE THINGS, THEY MOVE ALONG.

Wanting something more than you don't want it can cause you to leave a job,
leave a geographical location, leave people, etc. We take the thing we want
most, and we pay attention to the thing we love most.

As an example: Alcoholism and AA. ****ing bull****. People who drink too
much merely haven't found anything they want more than booze. That analogy
can be transferred across the board to any situation. As you say, those who
don't want to suck it up and move on just don't want it bad enough.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

EVERYONE IS EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT TO BE, DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO
DO, WITH EXACTLY WHO THEY WANT TO BE WITH AT ANY MOMENT IN THEIR LIFE.
WHENEVER THEY DON'T WANT ONE OF THESE THINGS, THEY MOVE ALONG.

Can't really agree with this. Not completely... Everyone is
where they are, doing what they are doing, by CHOICE. Not
leaving a bad situation because one feels one has no choice,
does not mean they want to be there. But one always has a
choice, even if that choice is to walk away from everything
and just live on the street. Or committ suicide. Both are
choices and I've faced them myself. I managed to find
better, alternate choices.

One just needs courage to make a choice and follow through
with it. But many people have been psychologically berated
and belittled to the point they feel powerless and have no
choices.
I feel for these people, for a few times I've almost fallen
prey to that myself.

Jon

On Nov 18, 10:49 am, "Al" wrote:
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.


Without the union you would have become more capable of doing things
for yourself and not relying on other people. Your character would be
stronger.
You would be a much better person than you are now.

"sparky" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 10:49 am, "Al" wrote:
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.


Without the union you would have become more capable of doing things
for yourself and not relying on other people. Your character would be
stronger.
You would be a much better person than you are now.

Oh, now you're over the top. He sounds as good as anyone here -- better, in
fact, than the smug and sanctimonious jerks who think they're better than he
is.

Here's a key fact, sparky: Without unions, you'd be making a fraction of
what you're making now. The only thing that makes you worth what you make is
the fact that unions raised the bar for more than a half-century so you
could settle back and take advantage of what they did. Before unions, the
idea of any kind of worker making it into the middle class, which was made
up of professionals and merchants at the beginning of the last century, was
laughable.

It was the wages paid by union shops that made it possible for non-union
shops to pay you more, for two reasons. First, they set the competitive
standard for costs: all your employer(s) had to do was to shave a little bit
off of the union wage/load costs to be able to beat them in the marketplace.
Second, their wages established a floor, at some percentage under what they
were making, that your non-union employers had to pay in order to attract
workers.

Your entire working life has been parasitic upon unions. There isn't a
person here who works at a non-management job who isn't in the same boat.
And it isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of whether you know labor
and economic history or not.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 23, 1:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Here's a key fact, sparky: Without unions, you'd be making a fraction of
what you're making now. The only thing that makes you worth what you make is
the fact that unions raised the bar for more than a half-century so you
could settle back and take advantage of what they did. Before unions, the
idea of any kind of worker making it into the middle class, which was made
up of professionals and merchants at the beginning of the last century, was
laughable.

It was the wages paid by union shops that made it possible for non-union
shops to pay you more, for two reasons. First, they set the competitive
standard for costs: all your employer(s) had to do was to shave a little bit
off of the union wage/load costs to be able to beat them in the marketplace.
Second, their wages established a floor, at some percentage under what they
were making, that your non-union employers had to pay in order to attract
workers.

Your entire working life has been parasitic upon unions. There isn't a
person here who works at a non-management job who isn't in the same boat.
And it isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of whether you know labor
and economic history or not.

--
Ed Huntress

Paul Revere seems like an example of someone whose family went from
worker to the middle class. His father was an apprentice. Paul was
a craftsman, but it seems to me that he was middle class. So if it is
laughable, laugh away.

And then someone I know said :



"True enough. If you're a real theorizer and if you can back 'way off
from
the real lives of real people, you can even see it as a good thing
that will
work out just fine in the end. Milton Friedman is one of those. Thomas
Friedman is, too.

But you still have to ask what has driven that trend upward. It isn't
simple, and you won't find many serious economists who ignore the long-
term
effects of unions. "

The fact is that we had the history we had, and there is no way to
prove or disprove what would have happened without unions. But the
Friedmans are pretty serious economists. The unions had an effect,
but I contend that the end result occurred because of other things as
improved productivity that meant that more people could consume more.
And that is what grew the middle class. I don't think that the unions
are a big force now because of all the other things, and as a
theorizer I can back way off. Anytime you throw in things about"real
lives of real people ", you are getting away from theory and going
toward emotions.

I can accept your opinions, but do not think they are facts. And I
certainly agree that Sparky is over the top. One can know what has
happened, but it is pretty much impossible to know how someones
character would have developed in diffferent circumstances.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Nov 23, 1:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Here's a key fact, sparky: Without unions, you'd be making a fraction of
what you're making now. The only thing that makes you worth what you make
is
the fact that unions raised the bar for more than a half-century so you
could settle back and take advantage of what they did. Before unions, the
idea of any kind of worker making it into the middle class, which was
made
up of professionals and merchants at the beginning of the last century,
was
laughable.

It was the wages paid by union shops that made it possible for non-union
shops to pay you more, for two reasons. First, they set the competitive
standard for costs: all your employer(s) had to do was to shave a little
bit
off of the union wage/load costs to be able to beat them in the
marketplace.
Second, their wages established a floor, at some percentage under what
they
were making, that your non-union employers had to pay in order to attract
workers.

Your entire working life has been parasitic upon unions. There isn't a
person here who works at a non-management job who isn't in the same boat.
And it isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of whether you know labor
and economic history or not.

--
Ed Huntress

Paul Revere seems like an example of someone whose family went from
worker to the middle class. His father was an apprentice. Paul was
a craftsman, but it seems to me that he was middle class. So if it is
laughable, laugh away.

Paul Revere was a businessman, not a wage-earner, having acquired one
business from his marriage to his first wife; another from his father; and
foundry and copper-plating companies from his own entreprenuership. He built
a gunpowder plant. He was a petit capitalist and a pioneer of America's
Industrial Revolution. Wage-earners were working for *him*.

And then someone I know said :

"True enough. If you're a real theorizer and if you can back 'way off
from
the real lives of real people, you can even see it as a good thing
that will
work out just fine in the end. Milton Friedman is one of those. Thomas
Friedman is, too.

But you still have to ask what has driven that trend upward. It isn't
simple, and you won't find many serious economists who ignore the long-
term
effects of unions. "

That's right. We were talking about globalization and the eventual
(theoretical) leveling of wages across economies, however, which is a
different subject.

Labor economics is a very complicated subject because there are so many
variables and few clear-cut controls. Most of the literature that addresses
the subject of labor's effect on overall wages is based on cross-industry
studies. And the weight of evidence those studies provide supports the
conclusion that unions increased wages across the board in their early and
middle history, often at the direct expense of profits. Profits got
re-distributed by unions.


The fact is that we had the history we had, and there is no way to
prove or disprove what would have happened without unions. But the
Friedmans are pretty serious economists.

Well, Milton is. Thomas (no relation to Milton that I know of) is a
journalist who writes about economics and the Middle East. He's considered a
lightweight on economics by most observers; it's not his area of training.
He does sell more books than Milton these days. g

But, again, we weren't talking there about the effects of unions. We were
talking about the eventual leveling that comes from free trade. That doesn't
address what the level will rise to.

The unions had an effect,
but I contend that the end result occurred because of other things as
improved productivity that meant that more people could consume more.
And that is what grew the middle class. I don't think that the unions
are a big force now because of all the other things, and as a
theorizer I can back way off. Anytime you throw in things about"real
lives of real people ", you are getting away from theory and going
toward emotions.

We're getting away from macroeconomics and going toward microeconomics,
which is about the real lives of real people and real businesses. Our
disagreement is over macro issues, which is more theoretical. Micro starts
with case studies; macro starts with historical statistics.

Unions certainly are not a big force now. IIRC, only something like 9% of
workers in the US are presently organized, which is the lowest it's been
since the days of the labor riots at the beginning of the last century.
Their effect, which is getting harder to measure, will show up more in terms
of developed-country standards in competition with developing-country
standards. In other words, globalization's evolution will tell us some
things, but I don't know how measurable they'll be.


I can accept your opinions, but do not think they are facts.

There are plenty of facts behind my opinions, Dan. There's no controversy
over these particular facts in the economic history of the US: The modern
labor movement started when the industrial revolution had progressed to the
point that companies were able to drive wages down because of the extreme
bargaining weakness that labor had, in the 1870s and particularly in the
late 1880s. Capital was competing on an amoral ground at that time. The
owners could justify anything for the sake of competition, and the first big
successes of the labor movement were in reducing the hardships of child
labor. The Fair Labor act of 1928 was a direct outgrowth of agitating from
unions.

Wage trends are harder to isolate but there were two instances in which
unions kept wages from dropping. The first occurred in the 1880s, and the
second in the period of 1910 to roughly 1925. First, large-scale
industrialization, and second, the Taylor system and the "deskilling" of
labor made it possible for companies to reduce wages. Strikes, often violent
ones, are generally credited with keeping the wage floor from collapsing.

These issues were not the subject of much argument at the time. They've been
lost in the historical revisionism of conservative think-tank publications
and in the generally vague idea of history that most Americans have today.
There's no reason that issues like those should be a subject of disagreement
today except that the grain of labor history is pretty fine and
broad-brushing it won't yield those details.

The whole thing is an accumulation of details, in fact. As I said, it's also
very complex and it's difficult to isolate what caused what. I'll stand
behind the point that unions can be shown to have increased the floor of
wages, however, because I was once exposed to it on a pretty detailed basis
and it would be possible to drag up enough evidence to make the point pretty
convincingly.

Not now, however. That's too much work. g

And I
certainly agree that Sparky is over the top. One can know what has
happened, but it is pretty much impossible to know how someones
character would have developed in diffferent circumstances.

Sure. That doesn't require economics. That just requires a little common
sense.

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks Ed!

You are right on!



I wasn't going to post to this OT any more but I see that my buddy Harold
doesn't mind. He hates it when I post but he doesn't mind it when he posts
his thoughts over and over on the same topic. Like you Harold, I can live
with anyone’s opinions but YOUR “preaching” shouldn’t go unanswered. It
sounds like you have “yours” and you couldn’t care less of about the rest of
working Americans? Don’t worry, you not unusual. Selfishness has become
somewhat of a norm. Unlike you, I care about my neighbors, my family, my
friends. I want them to have the real opportunity to enjoy the “middle
class”.



The middle class in the USA is shrinking faster that in any time since our
founding. Experts/economists say it's directly proportional to the
institutional dismantling of the organized labor movement.



And yet with this pending crisis we have loads of people spouting the same
rhetoric... "I don't need unions, I can take care of myself".... "unions
were useful once but not now".



They may soon wish that they hadn’t said those things because they and their
families may be the first affected by a “union free” USA.



Reminds me a little of the history of 1930’s Germany. Unions were made
unpopular in that time and, YES, history does repeat itself. Especially for
the uninformed or misinformed!



Some examples: At one time unions made defined benefit pensions almost a
norm. People with these pensions could depend on a secure retirement and a
measure of dignity in their old age. NO MORE! These pensions are becoming
more and more rare. Management has decided as long as their risk of
unionization is low or none existent they don’t have to worry about it. If
most workers have any retirement security at all it is in a 401K that shift
ALL of the risk to them and lets employers ignore the social promise that
was common in the middle of the last century (when unions existed!).



There are a handful of good (academic) books written in the last year or so
articulating the pending crisis. Anyone want to read them, let me know and
I’ll post a list?



AND…. If no-one replies, I’ll just let it go. I’ve got lots of other
projects to work on.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"sparky" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 10:49 am, "Al" wrote:
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be
the
same today.


Without the union you would have become more capable of doing things
for yourself and not relying on other people. Your character would be
stronger.
You would be a much better person than you are now.

Oh, now you're over the top. He sounds as good as anyone here -- better,
in fact, than the smug and sanctimonious jerks who think they're better
than he is.

Here's a key fact, sparky: Without unions, you'd be making a fraction of
what you're making now. The only thing that makes you worth what you make
is the fact that unions raised the bar for more than a half-century so you
could settle back and take advantage of what they did. Before unions, the
idea of any kind of worker making it into the middle class, which was made
up of professionals and merchants at the beginning of the last century,
was laughable.

It was the wages paid by union shops that made it possible for non-union
shops to pay you more, for two reasons. First, they set the competitive
standard for costs: all your employer(s) had to do was to shave a little
bit off of the union wage/load costs to be able to beat them in the
marketplace. Second, their wages established a floor, at some percentage
under what they were making, that your non-union employers had to pay in
order to attract workers.

Your entire working life has been parasitic upon unions. There isn't a
person here who works at a non-management job who isn't in the same boat.
And it isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of whether you know labor
and economic history or not.

--
Ed Huntress

"Al" wrote in message
...
Thanks Ed!

You are right on!



I wasn't going to post to this OT any more but I see that my buddy Harold
doesn't mind. He hates it when I post but he doesn't mind it when he
posts his thoughts over and over on the same topic. Like you Harold, I
can live with anyone’s opinions but YOUR “preaching” shouldn’t go
unanswered. It sounds like you have “yours” and you couldn’t care less of
about the rest of working Americans? Don’t worry, you not unusual.
Selfishness has become somewhat of a norm. Unlike you, I care about my
neighbors, my family, my friends. I want them to have the real
opportunity to enjoy the “middle class”

Perhaps you'd understand my position better if you knew the amount of money
I grossed annually. My gripe has been, and still is, greediness----those
making unearned money----especially when they hold hostage their employer,
or the consumer of their products or services.

For the record-----my best year as a machinist, running a one man shop,
farming out NOTHING aside from secondary operations (certified heat treat
and finishing), was scarcely over $52,000. Bear in mind, I closed the
doors on my shop back in '83.

Reason for the modest income?

My bidding was realistic. I calculated my shop rate, which was below the
norm, but I was productive on the machine. I didn't routinely make much
more than shop rate, which provided a skilled, experienced
machinist/toolmaker, equipment, and liability. While It might be nice to
boast of having routinely made $200/hr., alas, I can not.

By sharp contrast, several of my acquaintances, shop owners all, were far
more greedy, and had incomes in the six digit bracket, one of which bordered
on seven digits. They did that by overbidding and skimming what they
could.

I still like these guys, I simply don't agree with their method of doing
business, or their philosophy. You shouldn't either, for the vast
majority of the work these guys did was for you, the tax payer. Get the
picture? Where the hell does it stop?

My goal has never been to make a killing--although I have always felt I was
deserving of making a living, if for no reason, I was doing more than
nothing----including investing hard earned money. I provided a good and
valuable service for my time, and I was paid appropriately. Any greater pay
would have meant that someone, somewhere--------was getting screwed. Even
you. Taxpayer, remember?

With that in mind, you may see me as something less than some kind of
monster------or not. I have no idea of your mindset. Frankly, it matters
not, for I have a decent standard by which I live and I'm not concerned
about the opinions of those that have lost their way.

I have stated on more than one occasion I have not been an anchor on the
neck of society. I was gainfully employed from the time I started working
after high school until I took my retirement at age 54. I earned my
way----although I readily admit that I didn't earn the way of others. It
is incumbent upon them to do that for themselves. That includes feeding
their children. If their zest for pursuing an agency that is corrupt,
and guarantees them unearned wages and benefits, then watching their
children perish in the process is very much a part of what they should
expect. If the children are but pawns for this individual, why must they
become so valuable to me, where I am held hostage by their welfare?
That's precisely what would be expected from such an individual, a tool of
their trade, so to speak. Ain't gonna happen, not with me.


Harold

On Nov 22, 8:06 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"sparky" wrote in message

...

On Nov 18, 10:49 am, "Al" wrote:
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was 14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be the
same today.

Without the union you would have become more capable of doing things
for yourself and not relying on other people. Your character would be
stronger.
You would be a much better person than you are now.

Oh, now you're over the top. He sounds as good as anyone here -- better, in
fact, than the smug and sanctimonious jerks who think they're better than he
is.

Here's a key fact, sparky: Without unions, you'd be making a fraction of
what you're making now. The only thing that makes you worth what you make is
the fact that unions raised the bar for more than a half-century so you
could settle back and take advantage of what they did. Before unions, the
idea of any kind of worker making it into the middle class, which was made
up of professionals and merchants at the beginning of the last century, was
laughable.

It was the wages paid by union shops that made it possible for non-union
shops to pay you more, for two reasons. First, they set the competitive
standard for costs: all your employer(s) had to do was to shave a little bit
off of the union wage/load costs to be able to beat them in the marketplace.
Second, their wages established a floor, at some percentage under what they
were making, that your non-union employers had to pay in order to attract
workers.

Your entire working life has been parasitic upon unions.


God, You sure can tell some big untruths.

"sparky" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 8:06 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"sparky" wrote in message

...

On Nov 18, 10:49 am, "Al" wrote:
Ron:

You are wasting your time trying to convince most here.

I agree with you completely and have been a union member since I was
14
years old when my parents died and I had to take care of my self. If
it
hadn't been for my union sisters & brothers, & my union I wouldn't be
the
same today.

Without the union you would have become more capable of doing things
for yourself and not relying on other people. Your character would be
stronger.
You would be a much better person than you are now.

Oh, now you're over the top. He sounds as good as anyone here -- better,
in
fact, than the smug and sanctimonious jerks who think they're better than
he
is.

Here's a key fact, sparky: Without unions, you'd be making a fraction of
what you're making now. The only thing that makes you worth what you make
is
the fact that unions raised the bar for more than a half-century so you
could settle back and take advantage of what they did. Before unions, the
idea of any kind of worker making it into the middle class, which was
made
up of professionals and merchants at the beginning of the last century,
was
laughable.

It was the wages paid by union shops that made it possible for non-union
shops to pay you more, for two reasons. First, they set the competitive
standard for costs: all your employer(s) had to do was to shave a little
bit
off of the union wage/load costs to be able to beat them in the
marketplace.
Second, their wages established a floor, at some percentage under what
they
were making, that your non-union employers had to pay in order to attract
workers.

Your entire working life has been parasitic upon unions.


God, You sure can tell some big untruths.

I suppose I could if I wanted to, but a lifetime of checking facts and
poking at the conventional wisdom has led me to the much more lucrative and
satisfying work of sticking to the facts. It's my reputation as a writer and
I intend to keep it.

--
Ed Huntress