writers strike is getting me really po'd

Early B.

Just curious -- does this strike include songwriters?

shack

Early B wrote:

Just curious -- does this strike include songwriters?

Songwriters are independent contractors...No union.

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

It goes beyond that.

The unions hold the power, not the employer, which is the problem. If the employer gives in they can at least still have a company for a time, even if it means that down the road it will dry up. If an employer doesn't give in to the demands of the union they strike and in short order the business is toast. It's been said it's benificial for the unions to make sure the company succeeds -- I don't see that as the case. Mostly because if you're out a job you just get another one. If an employer loses his company he's out an incredibly large asset including start-up money and all of his personal money that he's had to sink into it over the years, which does happen a lot.

There has been talk of Toyota possibly buying GM. The reason it hasn't happened is because all of the pension crap and a myriad of other things pertaining to the union contracts. The UAW as a whole has been weakened greatly by Toyota's non-union operations, which is what most of their operations are.

I want the Big Three to do well again, but I am afraid it will likely never happen so long as the UAW is around.

I do agree with this,I think the crux of the matter is your definition of what fair pay and benefits are given inside a paticular industry.This is the arena I think unions overstep their bounds.Some use the strike threat to grab as much as they can as soon as they can.Greed in short.I do not advocate such practice.Though a strike is a tool so to speak,should not be waved around like a gimme what I want or else.Thats strongarming,not negotiating.Don't get me wrong,a strike sometimes maybe the only option,but should be the very last one.Some union leaders have the mentality........."see what I got for you", AND THAT SUCKS.You have to look at an industry as a whole,just not your little neck of the woods.But....in the end,power and money reign supreme,and thats what alot of unions are about unfortunately.Not all mind you but alot.Once they have it,they are not likely to give it up anytime soon.So whats the answer? If the big 3 want to stay in the game,they have to come up with better products,either bust out that union and adopt a buisness model such as Toyota's.Or the UAW is going to have to redo the whole contract to make it more reasonable for all involved.....not likely to happen...but who knows....they have to protect their phoney belogney jobs..
Blazeing Saddles.....anybody?

PhantomOG

shack wrote: »

Songwriters are independent contractors...No union.

those poor poor songwriters. I bet they get all kinds of abuse without a union to take care of them.

tonyb

PhantomOG wrote: »

those poor poor songwriters. I bet they get all kinds of abuse without a union to take care of them.

Smartass...:)Who said unions are for everyone? Not me.

PhantomOG

What kinds of protections are offered by unions that aren't/can't/shouldn't be protected by the government?
smartass mode off.

rskarvan

I once heard a very highly regarded union representative (an organizer) explain it this way:

"You have to extract power. Nobody gives it to you".

PhantomOG

extract != earn

If you earn something you have my respect. If you extort something, you lose my respect.

rskarvan

A little off-topic:
(1) Zero Gravity - When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C.

The Russians used a pencil. Your taxes are due again--enjoy paying them.

(2) Our Constitution - 'They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and it's worked for over 200 years. And, we're not using it anymore.

(3) Ten Commandments - The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is that you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment!

tonyb

PhantomOG wrote: »

What kinds of protections are offered by unions that aren't/can't/shouldn't be protected by the government?
smartass mode off.

Why should the government ie the taxpayer,provide you with jack? Aside from safety rules why should they protect your job?

tonyb

PhantomOG wrote: »

extract != earn

If you earn something you have my respect. If you extort something, you lose my respect.

Extracting thru negotiation is one thing,extortion is another.

PhantomOG

tonyb wrote: »

Why should the government ie the taxpayer,provide you with jack? Aside from safety rules why should they protect your job?

I'm not asking them to provide me anything. I think the current workplace laws are more than adequate and unions are therefor unnecessary. I have never, and will never participate in a union.

I'm asking those who are in favor of unions what protections do the unions offer that are not already covered by laws (workplace safety, minimum wage, overtime, etc.).

Shizelbs

Was it not the original intent of unionization to prevent workers from being subjected to overly dangerous work environments where they were killed by machinery and such? Am I remembering my history correctly? I don't believe unions were introduced to raise already livable wages and conditions to higher than free market value.

Side note, I can only imagine how screwed this country would be if all of healthcare was unionized.

rskarvan

Unions Are Good for Business, Productivity and the Economy
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm

According to Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley,[1] unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.

Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:

Productivity
Competitiveness
Product or service delivery and quality
Training
Turnover
Solvency of the firm
Workplace health and safety
Economic development
Productivity
According to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on unions and productivity: “The available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between unions and productivity in the U.S. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[2]

Some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between unions and productivity. According to Brown and Medoff, “unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[3]

Product/ Service Delivery and Quality
According to Professors Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago,[4] heart attack recovery rates are higher in hospitals where nurses are unionized than in non-union hospitals.

Another study looked at the relationship between unionization and product quality in the auto industry.[5] According to a summary of this study prepared by American Rights at Work:


“The author examines the system of co-management created through the General Motors-United Auto Workers partnership at the Saturn Corporation…The author credits the union with building a dense communications network throughout Saturn's management system. Compared to non-represented advisors, union advisors showed greater levels of lateral communication and coordination, which had a significant positive impact on quality performance.”



Training
Several studies in have found a positive association between unionization and the amount and quality of workforce training. Unionized establishments are more likely to offer formal training.[6] This is especially true for small firms. There are a number of reasons for this: less turnover among union workers, making the employer more likely to offer training; collective bargaining agreements that require employers to provide training; and finally, unions often conduct their own training.

Turnover
Professor Shaiken also finds that unions reduce turnover. He cites Freeman and Medoff’s finding that “about one fifth of the union productivity effect stemmed from lower worker turnover. Unions improve communication channels giving workers the ability to improve their conditions short of ‘exiting.’”[7]

Solvency
Labor’s enemies assert that unions drive employers out of business, but academic research refutes this claim. According to Professors Richard Freeman and Morris Kleiner, unionism has a statistically insignificant effect (meaning no effect) on firm solvency.[8] Freeman and Kleiner conclude “unions do not, on average, drive firms or business lines out of business or produce high displacement rates for unionized workers.”

Workplace Health and Safety
Employers should be concerned about workplace health and safety as a matter of enlightened self-interest. According to an American Rights at Work summary of a study by John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts:



“Only one factor effectively moves workers who are in subordinate positions to actively cope with hazards: membership in an independent labor union. These findings suggest that union growth could indirectly reduce job stress by giving workers the voice to cope effectively with job hazards.”[9]



Economic Development
Unions also play a positive role in economic development. One good example is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, “an association of 125 employers and unions dedicated to family-supporting jobs in a competitive business environment. WRTP members have stabilized manufacturing employment in the Milwaukee metro area, and contributed about 6,000 additional industrial jobs to it over the past five years. Among member firms, productivity is way up--exceeding productivity growth in nonmember firms.”[10]

ohskigod

bolstering an argument for unions using a link from a Union site. priceless man, priceless :rolleyes:

Shizelbs

There is a big difference between saying heart attack recovery rates are higher in unionized hospitals vs. heart attack rates are higher in unionized hospitals because of the unions.

I'd love to read that study. Happen to be able to point me to the source of it?

Anyways, my point is, healthcare is expensive enough as it is. Unions wouldn't help lower the costs any, as far as wages are concerned.

Demiurge

rskarvan wrote: »

aflcio

I laughed.

rskarvan

Shizelbs wrote: »

There is a big difference between saying heart attack recovery rates are higher in unionized hospitals vs. heart attack rates are higher in unionized hospitals because of the unions.

I'd love to read that study. Happen to be able to point me to the source of it?

Anyways, my point is, healthcare is expensive enough as it is. Unions wouldn't help lower the costs any, as far as wages are concerned.

Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago, “The effect of registered nurses' unions on heart-attack mortality,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Apr. 2004), pp. 422-442.

Shizelbs

Thanks

rskarvan

Demiurge wrote: »

I laughed.

I thought you would find that amusing.:p

tonyb

Unions give you the option to collectively negotiate a fair cotract in regards to pay, benefits,working conditions.Of coarse,you as joe schmoe can negotiate with your employer too.But if he renigs on that verbal agreement,who stands by you? Is an employer more likely to honor a contract with one person or 100,000 people?When your employer says he has to cut wages and reduce benefits,does big brother step in on your behalf? When your employer asked you to do work and not get paid for it,who ya going to tell without loss of job? We refer to the free work as "church time" in union lingo.No,instead,you take it up the **** or quit.Neither option seems ok with me.Unions give you an avenue to complain about **** employers.Alot of you say to suck it up and if you don't like it,quit,and go somewhere else.A union will tell you as an employer,to suck it up and if you don't like it,don't do buisness in this state.Demi seems like a good honest employer,and I wish alot more were like him.If that was the case,we would not need unions.But unfortunatly,it is not the case.Too many scumbags out there that thrive off of takeing advantage of the masses.Can't legislate good moral buisness practice,and we the people,owners and employee's,aren't exactly moral these days.Or the arguement goes that if the employer treats you like crap,go somewhere else.Problem with that is,what if there is no "somewhere else"?
The bad out number the good employers.But people still have to work to feed themselves,so they take the abuse 'cause they need the job.Now what don't you guys get about that scenerio?Look,I said it before and I will say it again,unions are not for every aspect of the workforce.They do have a place though,may not be everyone's cup of tea,but to some,they are an angel.Don't like unions?? Good for you,march on and be happy.Nobody is going to twist your arm to join one.Well,maybe:D

PolkWannabie

Unions cater at best to the AVERAGE worker ...

There's no point in trying to do more or better work then the guy that's standing next to you because you'll be getting the same raise regardless ...

By it's nature this is counter productive for whatever business and I would think stifling for anyone who has the desire and aptitude to be something more ...

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote: »

Unions Are Good for Business, Productivity and the Economy
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm

According to Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley,[1] unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.

Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:

Productivity
Competitiveness
Product or service delivery and quality
Training
Turnover
Solvency of the firm
Workplace health and safety
Economic development
Productivity
According to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on unions and productivity: “The available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between unions and productivity in the U.S. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[2]

Some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between unions and productivity. According to Brown and Medoff, “unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[3]

Product/ Service Delivery and Quality
According to Professors Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago,[4] heart attack recovery rates are higher in hospitals where nurses are unionized than in non-union hospitals.

Another study looked at the relationship between unionization and product quality in the auto industry.[5] According to a summary of this study prepared by American Rights at Work:


“The author examines the system of co-management created through the General Motors-United Auto Workers partnership at the Saturn Corporation…The author credits the union with building a dense communications network throughout Saturn's management system. Compared to non-represented advisors, union advisors showed greater levels of lateral communication and coordination, which had a significant positive impact on quality performance.”



Training
Several studies in have found a positive association between unionization and the amount and quality of workforce training. Unionized establishments are more likely to offer formal training.[6] This is especially true for small firms. There are a number of reasons for this: less turnover among union workers, making the employer more likely to offer training; collective bargaining agreements that require employers to provide training; and finally, unions often conduct their own training.

Turnover
Professor Shaiken also finds that unions reduce turnover. He cites Freeman and Medoff’s finding that “about one fifth of the union productivity effect stemmed from lower worker turnover. Unions improve communication channels giving workers the ability to improve their conditions short of ‘exiting.’”[7]

Solvency
Labor’s enemies assert that unions drive employers out of business, but academic research refutes this claim. According to Professors Richard Freeman and Morris Kleiner, unionism has a statistically insignificant effect (meaning no effect) on firm solvency.[8] Freeman and Kleiner conclude “unions do not, on average, drive firms or business lines out of business or produce high displacement rates for unionized workers.”

Workplace Health and Safety
Employers should be concerned about workplace health and safety as a matter of enlightened self-interest. According to an American Rights at Work summary of a study by John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts:



“Only one factor effectively moves workers who are in subordinate positions to actively cope with hazards: membership in an independent labor union. These findings suggest that union growth could indirectly reduce job stress by giving workers the voice to cope effectively with job hazards.”[9]



Economic Development
Unions also play a positive role in economic development. One good example is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, “an association of 125 employers and unions dedicated to family-supporting jobs in a competitive business environment. WRTP members have stabilized manufacturing employment in the Milwaukee metro area, and contributed about 6,000 additional industrial jobs to it over the past five years. Among member firms, productivity is way up--exceeding productivity growth in nonmember firms.”[10]

Wow good old fashioned propaganda. . .

. . . USSR-UCB = Union of Soviet Socialist Republic - University of California-Berkeley

Kool-Aid time.


GOLD JERRY GOLD!

tonyb

PolkWannabie wrote: »

Unions cater at best to the AVERAGE worker ...

There's no point in trying to do more or better work then the guy that's standing next to you because you'll be getting the same raise regardless ...

By it's nature this is counter productive for whatever business and I would think stifling for anyone who has the desire and aptitude to be something more ...

wrong.....that union wage is a starting point,you do better than the moron next to you,you will get above union pay,at least in my neck of the woods.
I don't get this attitude of stifling.You can be anything you want.A union doesn't stifle anyone.Most owners in my buisness came up thru union companies to start their own union company.Lets say they do cater to the average worker for the sake of arguement,how many "average" workers do you think this country has? Millions no? Unions train these people into a skilled labor position that they can take with them.Maybe you consider an electrician an "average" worker.Shucks,your uncle joe taught you everything about it,right? Unions train the people who otherwise might be saying "Ya want fries with that".You should thank us for keeping these types off your welfare rolls.Jeeez.

tonyb

Yeah,Joe,anytime someone quotes Berkley,I get the runs.:)

Demiurge

tonyb wrote: »

Unions give you the option to collectively negotiate a fair cotract in regards to pay, benefits,working conditions.

Who defines fairness?

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Yeah,Joe,anytime someone quotes Berkley,I get the runs.:)

The bathroom runs or the "runs for the hills?":D

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

Who defines fairness?

There-in lies the problem Demi,greedy unions want to define it,but I would say let the industry decide.Take an average in a given geological area within that industry.Maybe tie it to the inflation rate somehow,see what owners think,and make a fair proposal,not a get as much as you can one.

tonyb

hearingimpared wrote: »

The bathroom runs or the "runs for the hills?":D

Bathroom runs my man,anything out of that state does it for me.:p

hearingimpared

Tony, you are one of a very few union members that I respect. It's not all the workers against the establishment with you, it's not force the employer to bend to the will of the union with you etc etc.

I think you should get involved in the hierarchy of unions, you could only do the whole business good.

Unlike the resident entitled socilist here you seem think about things fairly rather than falling for the propaganda put out.