HawkShack.com

Today's ruling about the union workers is a huge blow to the fundraising by unions for the democrats. This will have a huge impact on future elections.

Ruling yesterday about the Trump travel ban has the democrats up in arms but it is actually upholding the president's authority at the highest level. Not only for this president but all future presidents.

Winning!

Kagan's dissent:

"Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support."

And later, something along the lines of "it's been working just fine".

As if either of those are reasons to take a dump on the First Amendment. Unbelievably weak, and not like Kagan in my limited experience.

burrrton wrote:Kagan's dissent:

"Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support."

And later, something along the lines of "it's been working just fine".

As if either of those are reasons to take a dump on the First Amendment. Unbelievably weak, and not like Kagan in my limited experience.

Wish I could get back all the dues I was forced to pay when working for the Govt.

I generally support unions, but they need an overhaul. If they policed their employees performance and didn't think of themselves as sticking it to the man, I'd be more supportive of them. Union workers should be working hard not just to provide legal protections for their workers, but to ensure their workers are the finest out there. There should be a sense of pride and an employer should feel he is hiring a high quality union worker when he employs union workers. Now it's just a numbers game and protecting weak workers from suffering the consequences of their poor work ethic and behavior.

My experience, as a member of management, is that the threat of a union is a useful motivator just as useful as a union itself. Otherwise, they are an outdated organization. There are plenty of governmental agencies, both state and federal, that are available to anyone to protect them from illegal activity by employers. A phone call to the Department of Labor and Industries is just as powerful and sometimes even more fearful to an employee than a phone call to their union rep. DLI isn't the only organization, either. There's the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, OSHA (or in WA, WISHA) for work safety violations, the Civil Rights Commission, and so on. The problem is that the average Joe is unaware of these agencies and the services they offer.

Outside of the threat of unionization, which is a necessary evil that in non union shops forces the company to listen and be responsive to their employees, they are pretty much worthless.

RiverDog wrote:My experience, as a member of management, is that the threat of a union is a useful motivator just as useful as a union itself. Otherwise, they are an outdated organization. There are plenty of governmental agencies, both state and federal, that are available to anyone to protect them from illegal activity by employers. A phone call to the Department of Labor and Industries is just as powerful and sometimes even more fearful to an employee than a phone call to their union rep. DLI isn't the only organization, either. There's the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, OSHA (or in WA, WISHA) for work safety violations, the Civil Rights Commission, and so on. The problem is that the average Joe is unaware of these agencies and the services they offer.

Outside of the threat of unionization, which is a necessary evil that in non union shops forces the company to listen and be responsive to their employees, they are pretty much worthless.

Good points, totally agree. I think Unions had a place once upon a time but have outlived their usefullness. Sweat shops still exist but are illegal and when found are shut down. Usually those sweat shops are staffed by people who can't get a job legally now adays.

RiverDog wrote:My experience, as a member of management, is that the threat of a union is a useful motivator just as useful as a union itself. Otherwise, they are an outdated organization. There are plenty of governmental agencies, both state and federal, that are available to anyone to protect them from illegal activity by employers. A phone call to the Department of Labor and Industries is just as powerful and sometimes even more fearful to an employee than a phone call to their union rep. DLI isn't the only organization, either. There's the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, OSHA (or in WA, WISHA) for work safety violations, the Civil Rights Commission, and so on. The problem is that the average Joe is unaware of these agencies and the services they offer.

Outside of the threat of unionization, which is a necessary evil that in non union shops forces the company to listen and be responsive to their employees, they are pretty much worthless.

I tend to disagree they are outdated. I think they are extremely necessary, but require a model change. Unions legal protection is only one aspect of unions. They are necessary for wage levels to continue to rise. Individual workers have little to no power to control wages. You can be the best worker in a company and I guarantee that if you push for a wage increase a large corporation will look across you and say, "We pay this much for this position. See you later." High level, high quality managers at the high level can dictate wages based on track record, but the working joe's wage is often decided less by performance and more by position. That means in essence the majority of workers are trapped within a range whether they like it or not based on position often designated by corporations. Due to the size of corporations that employ thousands of workers, singular performances by good workers often pass unnoticed, unheralded, and unrewarded other than perhaps an opportunity to rise to one of the few management positions in the company.

When you have businesses that employ workers by the hundreds to thousands and sometimes tens to hundreds of thousands, group wage and benefit negotiations become important to maintain standard of living. I've worked inside these corps for so long seeing how they rate pay scales based on position with little room to negotiate outside that range for the rank and file employee no matter how great they are, much less the good or just above average, that I believe that wage levels should be negotiated by groups rather than individuals in many businesses. I don't see individual workers having sufficient power within the context of corporate labor structures. Absent group negotiation, they have little to no power to gain quality wages.

I think this is one of the major reasons for the decline of the Middle Class and why employers have been able to put continuous downward pressure on wages along with globalization of the workforce and automation. There are clear trends showing how diminishing union power has trended with the decline of the Middle Class as unions were one of the methods for negotiating with large organizations for the Middle Class work force.

On the flip side, there is also a plethora of anecdotal evidence showing that what is pushing unions out of favor is their protection of poor workers. Poor workers affect other union employees even more than they affect management. Some lazy guy with seniority taking a job form hardworking guy that came in the union late is not only damaging to the reputation of a union and its workers, but damaging to other workers views of unions. A group of hardworking workers together make for an easy workplace, but if a union is protecting some lazy worker who is being carried by his coworkers, they feel like the union is a problem as well. Unions are being short-sighted not changing with the times and creating a combative relationship with the employers they are attempting to sell that their union workers earned raises and the like.

Until unions decide to modernize, I cannot support them in their current form. Like you RD, I"m in management. I see so many quality workers screwed by union seniority that it makes me sick. Some of it is on lazy management not wanting do what is needed to get rid of a union employee that isn't performing or the companies not negotiating productivity minimums, but a lot of it is unions themselves not paying attention that many workers are getting turned off by them protecting some lazy, crazy SOB while they lose their job knowing they busted their ass at the job. Until unions tie performance as a means to vet their workers, I can't support them.

Unions legal protection is only one aspect of unions. They are necessary for wage levels to continue to rise. Individual workers have little to no power to control wages. You can be the best worker in a company and I guarantee that if you push for a wage increase a large corporation will look across you and say, "We pay this much for this position. See you later."

Then, in 2018, that worker goes across the street to the competing company and gets his higher wage. Thank you, free market.

There's also an implicit mistake in your reasoning: that unions pushing for ever-higher wages (which they do) is the best and most appropriate way to help the employees. It's not necessarily.

Some employees deserve higher wages and don't get them, some deserve lower and don't get that, some deserve to be fired, some don't- any way you cut it, though, some third party deciding all those things is not a defensible position.

They served a valuable purpose in the past, but today are as outdated as buggy whips, serving virtually no purpose except to perpetuate and enrich themselves (and with few exceptions, that goes for both public and private unions, although I don't have as much of a problem with the latter as the former as long as I don't have to work with their employees).

burrrton wrote:Then, in 2018, that worker goes across the street to the competing company and gets his higher wage. Thank you, free market.

There's also an implicit mistake in your reasoning: that unions pushing for ever-higher wages (which they do) is the best and most appropriate way to help the employees. It's not necessarily.

Some employees deserve higher wages and don't get them, some deserve lower and don't get that, some deserve to be fired, some don't- any way you cut it, though, some third party deciding all those things is not a defensible position.

They served a valuable purpose in the past, but today are as outdated as buggy whips, serving virtually no purpose except to perpetuate and enrich themselves (and with few exceptions, that goes for both public and private unions, although I don't have as much of a problem with the latter as the former as long as I don't have to work with their employees).

How did I know you would see it that way? Typical Goldwater-con answer. You fail to acknowledge per usual that mega-corporations control hundreds of thousands of jobs in a given industry. They pay a certain scale regardless of where you go. At one point in time that "Go across the street" was a reality, but in the modern mega-corporate world that controls hundreds of thousands of jobs under one roof there are not many doors to knock on. You have little to offer them different than what they can get other than cost unless you are a very, very special worker.

We love to talk about how the world has changed and unions are no longer needed as corporations get bigger and bigger and bigger controlling larger and larger groups of workers making the performance of the individual worker less and less important to their business. Then you add in globalization of the workforce and automation, you have downward pressure on wages with no capacity to push them up. You walk next door looking for a higher wage, the guy laughs you out of the building the and hires an Indian for 20% less.

Sorry, we disagree burrton and RD. Unions still serve a purpose and will continue to as corporations grow larger. Individual workers are nothing to a corporation other than fleshy robots they will replace if they cost too much or get out of line or too old. If that is how you like to see human beings, then I guess you're both right. I still like to believe the human element is important and worth protecting, but in a way that is beneficial to workers and employers. The current union model is based on unsound business principles that must be altered if they want to maintain relevance.

Employers are doing their best to bust unions, so they can put further downward pressure on wages. And people will keep wondering why the Middle Class is going away while never looking at the labor environment and where the power lies with employers that employ workers by the the tens of thousands. I find it amusing that guys that study economics don't get there is a very concerted effort to drive wages down and no means to fight back against it. You may want not accept it burrton and RD, but you are not that valuable to a company. They will replace if you ask for too much and don't care what you think you're value is. They want to pay you as low as possible for as much work as they can get. You have next to no power to alter what they want when they want it as an individual.

How did I know you would see it that way?

You're not completely consumed with insanity yet?

Typical Goldwater-con answer.

Yep- Goldwater-con... that's me. Nailed it.

Thinking done!

Employers are doing their best to bust unions, so they can put further downward pressure on wages.

"Employers" aren't some cabal working to fck you and unions over, chief- they're a diverse group of people looking to pay workers enough money to help them make enough money off everyone else that they can make a profit, and others are always free to do the same thing in a free market.

Bizarre, I know.

Generally speaking, it's been my experience that it's not the large, corporate employers that take advantage of their laborers, it's the small mom-and-pop businesses. I once had a good discussion with a union business agent that agreed wholeheartedly with this view. Large employers are more professional, know the rules, have bigger, more diverse work forces so they can't afford to be exposed as some sort of Ebenezer Scrooge. Mom and pop companies are more likely not to have had any formal training in basic supervisory skills and are generally unaware, as are their employees, of the laws surrounding the treatment of employees.

A good example is when I used to work in our field department and overheard the son of the owner of a small agriculture services company tell his employees that they had to speak in English so long as they were on the time clock. I tried to explain to the guy that his policy was illegal, that unless he has a valid, business related reason...such as talking over an open channel radio, servicing a customer, etc...that he could not force them to speak in English. He ignored me, thought I was full of it. Later, I told some of his employees that their boss's mandate was illegal, but they were afraid to challenge their boss's policy, fearful of losing their jobs.

It's those types of situations that begs for a representative or advocate, not the large employers that know better.

burrrton wrote:"Employers" aren't some cabal working to fck you and unions over, chief- they're a diverse group of people looking to pay workers enough money to help them make enough money off everyone else that they can make a profit, and others are always free to do the same thing in a free market.

Bizarre, I know.

Yes, they are a cabal, chief. Did you see how many corporations paid Trump's lawyer without the public's knowledge? Do you think this is unique? They are a competitive part of the labor market pursuing their interests in a coordinated fashion to achieve a goal of low cost labor using the immense resources they have to buy political power to achieve economic goals. Once again this is where you lose me because you do not acknowledge the fact that this is occurring. It's literally a documented fact that you can follow chains of evidence that show this exact thing happens all the time. You attempting to use free market theory rather than observable recorded facts that contradict your theory is tiresome. Economists often fail to acknowledge the very human reality that an individual cannot compete against a group of individuals with far more resources than them as they attempt to control and limit a labor market to their advantage. This is literally occurring on a daily basis with all the things you see like H1B visas which companies like Google and Microsoft rely on and pay a lot of political monetary support to maintain cheap labor supplies outside the country as well as agricultural organizations paying for politicians to support loose immigration enforcement to maintain their cheap labor supply from across the border. You find this corruption worldwide.

So explain to me how Mr. Individual worker can combat that when he goes next door from Microsoft and Google is doing the exact same thing?

Your theory does not fit the reality of the environment. That is why we will likely will never agree. I see corporations controlling thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs domestically and worldwide run by a group of men and women known as a Board of Directors that are using their immense resources to put downward pressure on the labor market by sheer numbers of jobs controlled and using money to garner political support to benefit them. It is natural for them to do it. And it is very much like a cabal.

So what option does the worker have to fight this? Use his paltry income to battle international corporations? Why don't you try that burton? See how well it works.

Or form unions or some other labor group to combine resources to fight it? Groups of workers employed by corporations by the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands (or more) using the aggregate power of their work to negotiate upward their wages and benefits. They use their aggregate power to do the same thing corporations do buying political power to support their position. This is what is happening in the labor environment. To you unions are outdated buggy whips, to me they are a natural move by private citizens to combat corporate power that uses resources and their vast control of job markets to limit their wage advancement.

And since I know further discussion will not avail to change your opinion, I will leave it there. You keep on thinking that corporations aren't trying to drive worker wages down using every means at their disposal and I'll keep on knowing that they are. If workers don't fight back as a group, they will be screwed and badly. I'll also acknowledge that workers need to modify their unions to be more competitive, so they aren't organizations that view employers as enemies, but more as competitors each looking to offer the other side value while negotiating to meet each other's goals: the worker a higher quality standard of living and the employer continuous profitability.

As usual, fun listening to your theory. I know the theory of which you speak, but I've also the sense to know it doesn't work like you say it does and never has. The human element has and will always throw off any theory attempting to simplify human interactions be they economic or any other kind. You keep on believing in your flawless economic theory and free markets like you believe we aren't a ruthless nation that has done many an evil that has caused us to have enemies that want to hurt us for reasons other than despising our freedom, while I'll keep relying on facts while still supporting capitalism and loving my country without need of lies to maintain doing so.

Competition is life. In a corporate driven world, unions are one of the best methods workers having of pulling their resources and votes to battle megacorporations. Unions are part a natural part of that competition to fight against power consolidation.

Yes, they are a cabal, chief.

Employers... are a cabal.

You read it here first, everyone!

LOL.

And since I know further discussion will not avail to change your opinion, I will leave it there.

You just said (I'm assuming seriously) that the employers of the US are a cabal, so this is probably for the best.

burrrton wrote:Employers... are a cabal.

You read it here first, everyone!

LOL.

No, they didn't read it here first. It's all over if you look for the information. I think I explained myself well enough for you to know that I"m not talking about small mom and pop businesses or companies. I think you know it too.

Employers are very different. You attempting to state something like "employers are a cabal" then chuckling as I state "yes they are" to win your argument is just pure ignorant pablum. Employers are a very diverse group. Among that group are megacorporations that drive the labor market. They have what is known as an undue influence on labor markets due to their size and scope. Megacorporations and large corporations as a whole are a cabal or very much like one.

I think understood my response well enough to know this, but you focused on your comment because it was easy to ridicule and didn't require much thought or effort on your part.

You just said (I'm assuming seriously) that the employers of the US are a cabal, so this is probably for the best.

You ignore the state of the corporate labor market. You ignore that corporate lobbying employs millions and billions of dollars to move labor markets as well as other tax and political codes the way they want them. You completely ignore that unions are a naturally developing means to battle corporations because the effect an individual worker has an a corporation is minimal. These are realities you completely ignore as you spout pithy, ignorant comments like "Employers are a cabal" leaving me as my only response to say yes,so you can chuckle as you fail to acknowledge the nuance of that question and the answer to it as though all employers are the same. Employers are not all the same and as long as folks like you aren't willing to acknowledge this, when we won't have much useful reform.

Suffice it to say why people like yourself and riverdog have no problem with groups of business owners employing millions and billions to get things their way, but you have a major problem when a group of workers try to do the same is beyond me. I never quite understood the thinking. You seem to be just fine with groups of millionaire and billionaire corporate owners spending millions and billions lobbying worldwide and controlling thousands to millions jobs, but far be it from a group of workers to come together to bargain on their behalf. They should just work as individuals like the corporate ownership groups they work for do. What a bunch of horse crap.

You ever read the number of business group organizations that exist to lobby on their behalf? It's immense. You have a problem with worker groups doing the same? Makes no damn sense.

you focused on your comment because it was easy to ridicule

Well put.

You ever read the number of business group organizations that exist to lobby on their behalf?

Of course not- I've told you you're the only one that reads and is aware of such things, Mr. EmployerCabal. They're mysteries to the rest of us.

RiverDog wrote:Generally speaking, it's been my experience that it's not the large, corporate employers that take advantage of their laborers, it's the small mom-and-pop businesses. I once had a good discussion with a union business agent that agreed wholeheartedly with this view. Large employers are more professional, know the rules, have bigger, more diverse work forces so they can't afford to be exposed as some sort of Ebenezer Scrooge. Mom and pop companies are more likely not to have had any formal training in basic supervisory skills and are generally unaware, as are their employees, of the laws surrounding the treatment of employees.

A good example is when I used to work in our field department and overheard the son of the owner of a small agriculture services company tell his employees that they had to speak in English so long as they were on the time clock. I tried to explain to the guy that his policy was illegal, that unless he has a valid, business related reason...such as talking over an open channel radio, servicing a customer, etc...that he could not force them to speak in English. He ignored me, thought I was full of it. Later, I told some of his employees that their boss's mandate was illegal, but they were afraid to challenge their boss's policy, fearful of losing their jobs.

It's those types of situations that begs for a representative or advocate, not the large employers that know better.

Large employers have a much larger influence on wages and benefits than smaller employers. They don't have to do anything illegal because they can very much get the laws changed to their benefit, which they lobby for all the time.

This isn't a paint large corporations as big bad evil guys opinion. I really have no idea why burton defaults to that garbage with his free market theory bullcrap that doesn't exist in the real world. This is an acknowledgment that large employers pursue their goal of cheap labor as a group using vast resources and I very much believe workers have no chance of combating them without themselves negotiating as a group. Individual workers do not have this power to go next door as burrton states because employers will laugh at such a notion as they explain they have went next door themselves to other nations to expand their labor pool and keep costs low. Why pay an American when you can pay an Indian, Russian, or Chinese 20% less because his standard of living is much lower?

So how do you combat that as an individual? Hope for the best? Write your congressman while the large corporate owner calls that same politician on the phone and funds his campaign? All I'm saying is that unions are not as outdated as buggy whips. They are a private means for groups of citizens to use the aggregate power of their labor to negotiate wages and benefits with employers that decide wages and benefits for thousands of jobs or greater. You would prefer the government eventually set wage levels? That never works. It much better for private organizations like unions to negotiate wages and benefits with large employers so there is a market element to the negotiation versus a government mandate. So many people seem to forget that unions are not government organizations, but private labor groups funded by member workers to lobby and negotiate on their behalf.

I do not at all mind the existence of unions. I think they are necessary given the size and scope of the modern employer. Though I do believe unions need to modify their current structure to offer more to employers. By creating an adversarial rather than beneficial competitive relationship between employer and worker, they do themselves a disservice. I wish members would take a more active role in calling for better work and performance standards so that as a group an employer can feel that hiring union workers is hiring some of the best workers out there.

I'm not a union worker myself. I am management. And I prefer self-employment. I tend to view the market environment in an empirical versus a theoretical fashion.I see large employers putting downward pressure on wages and benefits in a very purposeful way funded by their immense resources. They are pushing for a global labor market that will further erode wage levels in 1st world nations. I tend to believe this is one of the largest factors for wage stagnancy and a lower standard of living that isn't discussed by pro business conservatives. The individual laborer has lost power as the labor market has changed from a domestic one to an international one and the sheer size of the largest employers has grown substantially.

This move by employers is good for stocks, but not so great for working folk save that they do get a reduction in the cost of goods. Not sure the reduction in the cost of consumer goods offsets the wage stagnancy, but most studies I've read indicate that it has not and the standard of living has been dropping in line with the reduction of union power. The business people of this nation have been very focused on union busting because it very much does result in lower wages and benefits for their working class folk. And as much as I like to make money in stocks and the like, I still have enough of a heart to feel bad for those folks that just want to work a job.

Investing and managing money comes easy to me. It doesn't seem to come so easy to the majority that often live paycheck to paycheck and tend not to enjoy spending their time studying companies, investing, and working at self-improvement even in their off-time. I certainly don't us to become a nation of haves and have nots because we've allowed business interests to so thoroughly destroy the working class's ability to obtain good wages and benefits. Being rich in a poor country doesn't feel right if it is caused by exploitation and power mongering.

All that being said I find it amusing that burton tries to paint me as some anti-capitalist nutjob. It's amusing considering my education is business and I spend a great deal of time investing, following the business news, and the economic environment. I don't do this just for fun though I enjoy it, but I put my hard-earned cash out there based on my knowledge of the economic environment. I very much love capitalism and think it is hands down the best economic system ever created that does the best job inspiring humans to achieve at the highest level possible while benefiting their fellow man. But just like with anything involving humans, you have to be wary of negative human emotions causing evil or suffering that should be avoided. Sure, make that money, but don't do it at the cost of humanity's well-being.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Large employers have a much larger influence on wages and benefits than smaller employers. They don't have to do anything illegal because they can very much get the laws changed to their benefit, which they lobby for all the time.

Of course, they do. And so do unions.

Why pay an American when you can pay an Indian, Russian, or Chinese 20% less because his standard of living is much lower?....So how do you combat that as an individual?

Get an education or vocation that makes you marketable. Most of the jobs that are being outsourced are low paying, minimum wage type jobs that won't support a family of 4 anyway. Keeping those jobs in our country under the conditions that exist here and paying them 20% more for the same thing that can be done overseas drives up prices. Even if they did manage to keep those jobs in this country, it wouldn't be long before companies figured out how to automate and build machines to perform the same tasks. The easier a job is to do, the easier and cheaper it is to replace it, whether that be with foreign worker or a machine.

I remember 15+ years ago counseling my daughter, born in 1986, on potential careers. I pointed out the fact that my generation, the Baby Boomers, would soon begin flooding the hospitals and nursing homes and that anything in the health care field was going to be red hot by the time she entered the job market. She took my advice, first tried getting admitted to an occupational therapy program and when she didn't quite have the grades, entered a nursing college instead and got her RN. She's now a charge nurse at an urgent care facility, with a lot of options to improve her fortunes should she choose to do so.

You would prefer the government eventually set wage levels? That never works. It much better for private organizations like unions to negotiate wages and benefits with large employers so there is a market element to the negotiation versus a government mandate. So many people seem to forget that unions are not government organizations, but private labor groups funded by member workers to lobby and negotiate on their behalf.

The government already does set wage levels. It's called the minimum wage.

Not all members want to fund unions to negotiate on their behalf. Some don't need or want their protection, will refuse representation. That's part of the problem in states like WA that do not have right to work laws. The union can take your dues and use it to pursue political objectives and support candidates you may not like without so much as an advisory vote from its membership, and you have no choice but to pay the union dues or lose your job.

I do not at all mind the existence of unions. I think they are necessary given the size and scope of the modern employer. Though I do believe unions need to modify their current structure to offer more to employers. By creating an adversarial rather than beneficial competitive relationship between employer and worker, they do themselves a disservice. I wish members would take a more active role in calling for better work and performance standards so that as a group an employer can feel that hiring union workers is hiring some of the best workers out there.

As I said before, if not for two things...the threat of unions and the ignorance of workers as to their rights...I do not see unions as being a viable entity in today's society.

I have been an eyewitness to many underhanded union tactics. The way the laws are written, if a union wants to get into a non union facility, there is no quorum requirement. All it takes is 50%+1, so if 3 people in a 500 worker facility vote on whether or not they want to be represented by a union, 2 yes votes and they are in. They'll intentionally under advertise times/places of voting then be sure to tell only those likely to vote in favor or hold the vote at a time when the facility is down and many have left town and unable to vote. They will identify groups that are unlikely to vote for unionization...Asians, for example...and instruct their promoters not to encourage them to vote or ignore them. And the most hypocritical activity of all is when the union's own secretaries and clerical workers threaten to unionize, the union will fight it tooth and nail. They are no less corrupt and unethical as big business.

RiverDog wrote:Get an education or vocation that makes you marketable. Most of the jobs that are being outsourced are low paying, minimum wage type jobs that won't support a family of 4 anyway. Keeping those jobs in our country under the conditions that exist here and paying them 20% more for the same thing that can be done overseas drives up prices. Even if they did manage to keep those jobs in this country, it wouldn't be long before companies figured out how to automate and build machines to perform the same tasks. The easier a job is to do, the easier and cheaper it is to replace it, whether that be with foreign worker or a machine.

You really aren't keeping up are you? You ever hear of the H1B visa program? This is not a program for low education labor. Man, I can't believe how clueless you are.

Large companies are importing tech workers and outsourcing tech development. Large tech companies are building development labs in India, China, and other nations to reduce the costs of development and pull from an international labor pool. Most chip manufacturing for computers is done outside America. Not low tech, low education jobs, but high tech chip manufacturing, development, and the like.

The globalization of the labor force that started with low tech, low education manufacturing jobs has moved up several tiers starting with call centers and continuing up the food chain.

Just like the low cost illegal migrant labor that used to focus on agriculture has now worked it's way up to what used to be good paying construction, electrical, and carpentry jobs.

You aren't paying attention any longer to what the younger generation deals with. There are so many ways that companies are lowering the cost of labor and putting downward pressure on wages that I could write pages on it. You are reciting like burton ancient information that is no longer applicable. Outsourcing and importing of labor has risen several levels. I guess you don't talk to many tech workers are big tech companies with the majority of software engineers being Asian or Indian.

The government already does set wage levels. It's called the minimum wage.

And you prefer this even though it doesn't work because it incorporates no market element or any understanding for various industries? Like I said unions are private entities that have some understanding of the business they are in versus a government one-sized fits all solution.

Not all members want to fund unions to negotiate on their behalf. Some don't need or want their protection, will refuse representation. That's part of the problem in states like WA that do not have right to work laws. The union can take your dues and use it to pursue political objectives and support candidates you may not like without so much as an advisory vote from its membership, and you have no choice but to pay the union dues or lose your job.

And companies you work for do the same. You don't seem to have a problem with that?

As I said before, if not for two things...the threat of unions and the ignorance of workers as to their rights...I do not see unions as being a viable entity in today's society.

So you would prefer companies run roughshod over workers? And you do not equate at all the lowering of the middle class and wages with the destruction of labor power? As in union breaking.

I have been an eyewitness to many underhanded union tactics. The way the laws are written, if a union wants to get into a non union facility, there is no quorum requirement. All it takes is 50%+1, so if 3 people in a 500 worker facility vote on whether or not they want to be represented by a union, 2 yes votes and they are in. They'll intentionally under advertise times/places of voting then be sure to tell only those likely to vote in favor or hold the vote at a time when the facility is down and many have left town and unable to vote. They will identify groups that are unlikely to vote for unionization...Asians, for example...and instruct their promoters not to encourage them to vote or ignore them. And the most hypocritical activity of all is when the union's own secretaries and clerical workers threaten to unionize, the union will fight it tooth and nail. They are no less corrupt and unethical as big business.

They are no less corrupt than big business We could go back and forth with stories about employers and unions engaging in BS, underhanded tactics. But you don't seem to mind big business using underhanded tactics and spending huge money to undermine workers, but groups of workers do it and their organization is outdated and unnecessary. It's hypocrisy on your part.

Like I said, you are clueless as to the employment environment today. You thinking t's only low tech workers being outsourced is proof if your ignorance. You were on the tail end of a decent time to be employed in America, future workers are not. Big business is working very hard to break unions, globalize labor, and drive down wages. The government cannot do anything about it and does not.

What worker rights do you think you have when employers decides to push down your wages across an industry or several industries? What worker rights do you have to increase your benefits when employers decide to keep on pushing benefits down? I want to hear what you feel you can do when employers as a whole decide they want to do something and you as an individual oppose it?

Like I said, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You've bought into the conservative BS that unions are somehow bad, even while the middle class erodes, wages continue to be stagnant,and corporations spend huge money to drive down wages while you expect the government to somehow offset corporate power that pays for the elections, gives them more tax breaks and tax cuts than workers ever get, and other such political advantages. It's the breach of reality with guys like you and burton I don't get.

I read business news on a daily basis. Not macro news or some BS article like you post, but what individual companies are doing on a daily basis domestically and nationally. Even with it being better for my investments to be against unions, I still think they are needed because the individual worker has a spitball's chance in hell against corporations. If you don't have money, you don't matter in this world. You get a smile, some kind words from a politician, and welfare. The only way for workers to exert political clout is to organize as a group just like corporations work as a group of powerful, monied people trying to get things they need done. I read about it every day whether it's paying off an Indonesian government for access to a copper mine, to paying billions to a Russian kleptocrat for oil drilling rights, or supporting an American president giving 21% corporate tax rate cuts.

You think you can fight that as an individual, good luck. You want your kids and grandkids to think they can fight powerful, monied corporations by walking next door or hoping the government provides enough worker rights to keep them afloat, you go ahead. I'm going to know with certainty that absent labor rebuilding union power, the American worker (pretty much the world wide worker) is screwed beyond their understanding. Sure, a handful of hardworking, valuable folks will navigate that labyrinth to make decent money, but the majority of people are going to live far worse and less profitable lives than their ancestors as long as corporations are somehow ok to spend billions exploiting labor, but guys like you consider it wrong for labor to spend millions to fight back.

Either way I'll be fine. I'm one of those guys currently benefiting from corporate ruthlessness. I imagine they throw enough scraps to charity to keep their images sound and stockholders feeling ok. We'll see how it is 50 or 100 years from now if corporations are successful at breaking the unions completely.

Asea, I haven't looked into all the higher end jobs that H1B's cover, but I can speak a little from my personal work experience as a bridge engineer. I've got two junior engineers, one from China and one from India, both have graduate level education with high marks and they are phenomenal at their job. They both just passed their exam for professional licensing. I can compare them to many a student I went to college with and other young engineers I work with who don't work near as hard nor have the same mental acumen. I mean, I remember several of the engineers I graduated with were more worried about hunting, fishing, partying, and drinking than they were with actually learning the skill and genuinely trying to become a good engineer. I also feel like the STEM degrees don't see as high enrollment as other majors largely due to the difficulty, where Asians, Indians, etc.. have high enrollment.

Anyway, I am curious what your thoughts are if we have a large demand in the STEM fields, and we basically don't have enough supply of future employees who have the aptitude for it, don't have a the drive for it, or both, how do you keep those jobs occupied by America's young people?

I know that does cover everything about it, but that's one aspect of the issue.

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Asea, I haven't looked into all the higher end jobs that H1B's cover, but I can speak a little from my personal work experience as a bridge engineer. I've got two junior engineers, one from China and one from India, both have graduate level education with high marks and they are phenomenal at their job. They both just passed their exam for professional licensing. I can compare them to many a student I went to college with and other young engineers I work with who don't work near as hard nor have the same mental acumen. I mean, I remember several of the engineers I graduated with were more worried about hunting, fishing, partying, and drinking than they were with actually learning the skill and genuinely trying to become a good engineer. I also feel like the STEM degrees don't see as high enrollment as other majors largely due to the difficulty, where Asians, Indians, etc.. have high enrollment.

Anyway, I am curious what your thoughts are if we have a large demand in the STEM fields, and we basically don't have enough supply of future employees who have the aptitude for it, don't have a the drive for it, or both, how do you keep those jobs occupied by America's young people?

I know that does cover everything about it, but that's one aspect of the issue.

Personally, I blame the Democrats for America's young people not being able to compete for higher end jobs. Democrats and their attitude that school is supposed to make them feel good was a bad idea from the moment it was conceived. I've talked with Chinese, Indian, and European students and read on their education systems. They do not have friendly schools that are concerned with how confident they are or how they feel. The focus in those nations with their socialist systems is forcing students into a competitive educational situation that is very high pressure. So many European, Asian, and Indian students have their fates decided by compulsory exams in High School and their parents do not let up forcing them to achieve knowing if they don't they'll be a cook or bus driver in their nation. Whereas you see this attitude among American parents of every descent save perhaps Asian and Jewish that the child can choose what he wants to do when he feels like it and it will all work out. They do not want to acknowledge the competitive job environment, the global competition that older folks didn't have to deal with, and the level of dedication, work, and focus on science and math it takes to obtain a higher end degree.

There was a period in the 60s where Liberal Democrats took over the education system to forward their socialist/"progressive" agenda. When doing so they rejected America's traditional values, not just he bad ones like racism and sexism, but the good ones like disciplined parenting, strong male-female relationships providing a stable environment for children to grow up in, competitiveness, capitalism as the foundation of an economy, and a strong work ethic. They taught this idea of free love, moral grayness, indulgence in drugs, the mid-life crisis which rejected traditional male roles in society (yes, males start the feminist movement with this garbage), which was followed by more movements like the feminist agenda which grew out of men running out on their wives leaving women to realize how vulnerable they were without work skills to support the children the husband left them with. This was a big start to the growing problem we have now with children that have trouble competing and generally knowing what to do as parents and adults.

You will note that many foreign families (or families of immigrants) do not lack the family structure and traditional gender roles that push children to excel. Asian fathers and mothers are so notorious for pushing their children to achieve that there are countless memes that make fun of the idea. Achievement is a part of their culture and it used to be a part of American culture until the liberalization of American society led to a view that pushing competition was mentally unhealthy for children and undermined their confidence. It did not matter to the "progressives" teaching this that this would weaken children when competition became a natural part of the environment in the workplace and for almost everything adult humans participate in.

That's just a summary of what I believe is causing the problem with American worker competitiveness with higher education jobs. Couple that with a strong push by employers to globalize the labor pool for multiple reasons such as reducing wages and having access to workers that allow them to expand into emerging markets along with outsourcing, automation, and a focus on stockholder value and an competitive government environment globally where you pick which nation to base out of according to tax codes, and you have a toxic environment for American labor.

It's why I think unions are necessary, but at the same time understand that they will not continue to exist if they do not become competitive. No employer is going to want to work with an organization that protects the worst workers by virtue of time in with a company. It is an astounding disincentive for a worker to be able to tow the line and work less the longer they are with a company. Until unions embrace performance as a measure of union seniority, they deserve to be destroyed. Lazy union employees are so damaging to the competitive position of an employer that any union refusing to incorporate performance standards as a measure of evaluation is worthless to an employer that needs to be able to compete on an international level.

And as you stated, workers from many foreign nations will bust their behinds for a company to improve their standard of living. Foreign nations are pushing hard to produce very competitive, effective STEM workers in their education system. Companies are pushing for this because the American K-12 education system has become so poor at producing competitive students in STEM fields. American workers seem to think they can finish some liberal arts degree, get some job with a liberal arts degree, end up non-competitive in the workplace, and it's all fine.

This is under the assumption you mean STEM stands for Science, Tech, Engineering, and Medicine.

Hey Aseahawkfan,

Definitely appreciate your response, and I like all the points you made; got me thinking about issues I hadn't thought about before.

I don't know how you fix what you've mentioned about education and achievement in our society now. At the risk of sounding like every other preceding generation, it seems the path of least resistance is all to prevalent with today's young people. To flip the script on them and require a higher standard probably won't go over too well.

And, yes, that is what I am talking about when I mention STEM. I am of the opinion that not many other majors are worth the investment by comparison, yet all of them are pushed without ever educating these kids on the payoff. That's also another reason I am against free college education for all unless some serious constraints were made. Those that feel the Bern want to tout the European education model yet don't realize not just anybody there can go to college on the state's dime and, once you are there, you have to make the grade. I had a Polish professor tell our Thermodynamics class about the college system in Europe and he even called out all the students that didn't know the equation for the area of circle and the value for the acceleration due to gravity. That's fundamental for any engineering major, and he basically said the lot of them wouldn't still be enrolled. Harsh, but true.

I digress, but, without fixing those issues, we're not going to see the end of H1B employees. I'm employed by a consulting firm that lives and dies by coming in on-time, under budget, and to the client's satisfaction. I'll take the two foreign nationals I mentioned over many of the potatoes I've seen come through here because, besides being good people, they do a great job and make us money.