Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:47 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1226 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 50  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3684
Lets use this spot for all the political blathering breaking news is well just that!

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:37 am
Posts: 323
Location: on the ether from www.deliciousagony.com only fair wave left methinks
The solution for the GUT or TFA will bring a damn astonishing surprise. ...me is with EM already more than completely ueber-satisfied.


Glossar

GUT - Grand Unifying Theory
TFA - Theory for All

EM - Electro-Magne'izzem

_________________
ya wa? the mewzick's pretty spectacular, geez. ..where's me chic cap swaggering to? rather mad. If only others would hark. Next phing on the wish-list gonna be a web-capable mobile iets, an hify-amp powered by solar-panels and propellers on that drat hat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:21 am
Posts: 5271
Location: Rhineland
I always thought the EURO came too early. Maybe it should be abolished now. I'm not sure yet. I'll tell you later.

_________________
What's the ugliest part of your body ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:41 pm
Posts: 32
My_Name_Is_Fritz wrote:
I always thought the EURO came too early. Maybe it should be abolished now. I'm not sure yet. I'll tell you later.


If you thought the past few years were an economic maelstrom, you haven't seen anything if the euro dies.

It's too late. There's no going back now. What I never understood was allowing Britain to keep the pound.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:21 am
Posts: 5271
Location: Rhineland
usapalu wrote:
My_Name_Is_Fritz wrote:
I always thought the EURO came too early. Maybe it should be abolished now. I'm not sure yet. I'll tell you later.


It's too late. There's no going back now.


I'm afraid you're absolutely right !

_________________
What's the ugliest part of your body ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3684
Wisconsin government employee's need to go back to work and start paying for their benefits.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:57 am
Posts: 128
Location: 6xU.Lspace.org & vivawatt.DeliciousAgony.com
what they could do with is teacher's :evil: .. 8) ... :mrgreen: ..friends?

find one then :twisted:

_________________
People too weak for bringing their own dreams into fruition will always find a way to disillusionise yours. ..thingy, nice. Ya almost all! ...even experts don't get it any more. ...Whitney.... No lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 2918
Location: Chicago, sort of.
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
Wisconsin government employee's need to go back to work and start paying for their benefits.

All they want is collective bargaining with the state. In addition, they've already agreed to make concessions with salaries and benefits. Sounds good to me. Problem is, the governor refuses to allow them to bargain in good faith.

_________________
Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:57 am
Posts: 128
Location: 6xU.Lspace.org & vivawatt.DeliciousAgony.com
not only have we to bring money with to work, ney, also all blood, ideas and everything else. ..just my try in explaining the truth here on the planet. Then those few usurpating moguls can, when nothing is left anymore, fly to the very next sun-system; ..in a small capsule. ...oooi, echt a good notion.


Modern man has none anymore, has he

_________________
People too weak for bringing their own dreams into fruition will always find a way to disillusionise yours. ..thingy, nice. Ya almost all! ...even experts don't get it any more. ...Whitney.... No lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1016
What I find odd is that the unions , which represent only 12% or so of the population ( until Obama hires more gov't workers ) expect the other 88% of workers , ie. taxpayers , to pay for bailouts of pension funds that have been unwisely spent by the union leaders. :roll:

Why were unions exempted from the health care bill ?

Why are union workers the only ones that can afford quality , union made domestic goods while the rest of the population have to shop at Wal Mart for Chinese crap ?

Why have jobs left this country in favor of lower production costs in foriegn lands BECAUSE of union wages ??

Why has the midwest , in the past 30 yrs , closed down maufacturing only to relocate in NON-UNION states ?

Why do unions give so much money to political platforms ?

Why do unions use people employed in the goverment ( paid for by ALL taxpayers ) to collect union dues ?

Why do teachers ( union members ) claim they are sick only to march in protest while the schools and children they propose to embrace , are closed and the children are not being taught ?

Just a few questions

:|

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 5:47 pm
Posts: 703
Location: next door
without unions,,
some people could never keep a job,,,, :roll:

_________________
Image
if you knew suzie, like I know suzie, oh, oh, oh what a creamcheese,,,,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 415
Location: State Of Jefferson
edyrukidng wrote:
without unions,,
some people could never keep a job,,,, :roll:

Once upon a time the idea was good but NOW, Now its for lazy people

_________________
http://idiots4obama.blogspot.com/
BANNED, BANNED, BANNED, BANNED, BANNED, BANNED, BANNED, BANNED
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:57 am
Posts: 128
Location: 6xU.Lspace.org & vivawatt.DeliciousAgony.com
Image

no words whatsoever can improve things any more. You make it all even worse. Image..Image thank y'all

_________________
People too weak for bringing their own dreams into fruition will always find a way to disillusionise yours. ..thingy, nice. Ya almost all! ...even experts don't get it any more. ...Whitney.... No lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5854
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Unions....Love 'em or hate 'em....if it wasn't for Unions, everybody would be working for free with no benefits and pensions would be destroyed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-1 ... -ohio.html

The last corporate job I had before becoming self-employed was at a non-union shop and everybody who worked there got thoroughly screwed as a result. For me personally, it was 15 years down the drain. Others who were there a lot longer than me and were close to retirement and full pensions were hit a lot worse than I was. This was back in 2006, long before Obama and the Dems took the House and Senate, and long after Clinton. Bush and the Republicans controlled the entire gov't for 6 years prior. My last job is now being done in a sweat shop somewhere in China as a result of no collective bargaining or protections. I wonder how many of them get pensions and benefits or are allowed to collectively bargain? The GOP obviously doesn't give a fuck about the middle class.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5854
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Unions Are Good for the American Economy

The essence of what labor unions do—give workers a stronger voice so that they can get a fair share of the economic growth they help create—is and has always been important to making the economy work for all Americans. And unions only become more important as the economy worsens.

One of the primarily reasons why our current recession endures is that workers do not have the purchasing power they need to drive our economy. Even when times were relatively good, workers were getting squeezed. Income for the median working age household fell by about $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, and it could fall even further as the economy continues to decline. Consumer activity accounts for roughly 70 percent of our nation’s economy, and for a while workers were able to use debt to sustain their consumption. Yet debt-driven consumption is not sustainable, as we are plainly seeing.

What is sustainable is an economy where workers are adequately rewarded and have the income they need to purchase goods. This is where unions come in.

Unions paved the way to the middle class for millions of American workers and pioneered benefits such as paid health care and pensions along the way. Even today, union workers earn significantly more on average than their non-union counterparts, and union employers are more likely to provide benefits. And non-union workers—particularly in highly unionized industries—receive financial benefits from employers who increase wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

Unfortunately, declining unionization rates mean that workers are less likely to receive good wages and be rewarded for their increases in productivity. The Employee Free Choice Act, which is likely to be one of the most important issues debated by the 111th Congress, holds the promise of boosting unionization rates and improving millions of Americans’ economic standing and workplace conditions.



Unions help workers achieve higher wages
Union members in the United States earn significantly more than non-union workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers’ wages were on average 11.3 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, American workers that join a union will earn 11.3 percent more—or $2.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars—than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts.

Yet union coverage rates have been declining for several decades. In 1983, 23.3 percent of American workers were either members of a union or represented by a union at their workplace. By 2008, that portion declined to 13.7 percent.


American workers’ wage growth lags as productivity increases
Workers helped the economy grow during this time period by becoming ever more productive, but they received only a small share of the new wealth they helped create. Throughout the middle part of the 20th century—a period when unions were stronger—American workers generated economic growth by increasing their productivity, and they were rewarded with higher wages. But this link between greater productivity and higher wages has broken down.

Prior to the 1980s, productivity gains and workers’ wages moved in tandem: as workers produced more per hour, they saw a commensurate increase in their earnings. Yet wages and productivity growth have decoupled since the late 1970s. Looking from 1980 to 2008, nationwide worker productivity grew by 75.0 percent, while workers’ inflation-adjusted average wages increased by only 22.6 percent, which means that workers were compensated for only 30.2 percent of their productivity gains.

The cost of benefits—especially health insurance—has increased over time and now accounts for a greater share of total compensation than in the past, but this increase is nowhere near enough to account for the discrepancy between wage and productiv¬ity growth. For example, according to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, between 1973 and 2006 the share of labor compensation in the form of benefits rose from 12.6 percent to 19.5 percent.

If American workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity between 1980 and 2008—as they were during the middle part of the 20th century—average wages would be $28.53 per hour—42.7 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008.

Unionization rewards workers for productivity growth
Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality. But increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant, new union workers would earn an estimated $49.0 billion more in wages and salaries per year. If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over current levels, newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $25.5 billion more in wages and salaries per year. Non-union workers would also benefit as employers would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

Increased unionization would boost Americans’ annual wages
Union employers are also significantly more likely to provide benefits to their employees. Union workers nationwide are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions compared to workers with similar characteristics who were not in unions.

Tell the GOP to go suck a big one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1016
Are those all the reasons for the US taxpayer bailing out GM and Chysler ??

So that 12% of the population can work a decent job , but 19% can't even find a job ?

What a deal :roll:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3684
Problem with the government employee union is the union money going to reelect the politicians that vote to keep the unrealistic benefits the employee gets, it is every where in politics but this must stop. I have been denied jobs for not wanting to join unions. Get these Wisconsin bennys;.... pension, they pay 80 bucks a year! Health, family of four and up, 1000 bucks a year, then get to keep it after retirement for free!!! Can you say spoiled and wrong.. I pay 8% of my gross for pension@ month, health, 500 bucks a MONTH for family of four, I would fire all of the walk outs and the doctors giving sick notes would be fined & or lose license to practice law in the state.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1016
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Unions....Love 'em or hate 'em....if it wasn't for Unions, everybody would be working for free with no benefits and pensions would be destroyed.




By that reasoning , more of the population would be union workers , Space.

How do you justify that thinking ??

As a former shop steward , unions are a thing of the past. Most employers know that to keep good people they have to give a good wage along with good benes , but with the unions political hold , along with insurance companies , there's not much the private employeer can offer.

Seems everybody wants equality but the unions just want to be a little more equal than everybody else in the private sector. :roll:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 3151
pedro2 wrote:
What I find odd is that the unions , which represent only 12% or so of the population ( until Obama hires more gov't workers ) expect the other 88% of workers , ie. taxpayers , to pay for bailouts of pension funds that have been unwisely spent by the union leaders. :roll:

Why were unions exempted from the health care bill ?

Why are union workers the only ones that can afford quality , union made domestic goods while the rest of the population have to shop at Wal Mart for Chinese crap ?

Why have jobs left this country in favor of lower production costs in foriegn lands BECAUSE of union wages ??

Why has the midwest , in the past 30 yrs , closed down maufacturing only to relocate in NON-UNION states ?

Why do unions give so much money to political platforms ?

Why do unions use people employed in the goverment ( paid for by ALL taxpayers ) to collect union dues ?

Why do teachers ( union members ) claim they are sick only to march in protest while the schools and children they propose to embrace , are closed and the children are not being taught ?

Just a few questions

:|



Good questions pedro!

But it's hard to argue about freedom and liberty if the only people who have it are the employers.

Meanwhile, budget cuts for us, bonuses for them.

and as I'm sure you know, without bargaining rights a union is nothing more than a bunch of people wearing the same t-shirt.

To be fair, each of your questions can be applied to the private sector. I would say public sector is not 'more equal' because if you make a comparison between workers with education:

workers in private sector make 10% more than those in public sector jobs with the same level of education even when you don't put a dollar value on health benefits.

I worked in a factory for five years in the late '80's and mid '90's. Private sector non-union. Every couple years someone would agitate for starting a union. The employer always worked hard to quell that and keep it under wraps. Before long those seeking for bargaining rights or union organization had to find another job. This is what people noticed and remembered: 'The last people who talked about unions, doesn't work here anymore'.

Maybe that's why unions aren't so prevalent.

Have a great week!

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1016
Nice to see ya Punk ! :D

Just a few more comments to make :


punknaynowned wrote:

But it's hard to argue about freedom and liberty if the only people who have it are the employers.

Meanwhile, budget cuts for us, bonuses for them.


If that were true , why have so many ' employers ' in the private sector either closed down operations , or at least scaled them down , vs the union shops ?

The goverment, ie. union , has increased !

punknaynowned wrote:


To be fair, each of your questions can be applied to the private sector. I would say public sector is not 'more equal' because if you make a comparison between workers with education:

workers in private sector make 10% more than those in public sector jobs with the same level of education even when you don't put a dollar value on health benefits..


Maybe those in the private sector work harder and smarter ?? :wink:

I know you've had to deal with govermental agencys and union regulations before. :mrgreen:


This article might interest you , Punk :

In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack.

That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... s_the.html

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3684
Yes great debate, the USA obviously has a different economic dynamic now compared to even 20 years ago. But the public union is an invitation for corruption. The union keeps the politician in office and in return get benefits that are unrealistic, considerings private working tax payer cover the cost.
i am not for private unions also. Through the years unions have cost me a job,by over pricing the small business i worked for, and they closed. I am only 60 but in my job history my non union jobs have had better bennies and pay.

_________________
A government Bureau is the closest thing to eternal life on earth that you will ever see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 3151
okay, you're gonna try and divert, that's fine.

Same factory, I worked a number of table saws for a week. Cut a bunch of parts for a week. I ran three tables then clean up at the end of the day. One of the saws did not have a brake -- against OSHA reg's. I spent half the first day arguing with the boss (not the employer, just a foreman) then looking for another saw. I didn't find one. I told him I won't use that saw and he said something like, 'Well, you better get your pen knife out cuz those 60,000 parts need to be cut." At one point he even said, "If you don't want to do it I can find somebody who will." I went ahead and did it but said they better fix it or find a saw with a brake. They didn't

So I did fine all week and long story short I split open the first two fingers on my right hand because that saw did not have a brake. I ran three radial saws. The one w/out the brake and one with and a finisher. At the end of each day I shut off the one without the brake first, knowing it would take longer to coast down and stop while I cleaned around the other saws that stopped immediately. It was the last day of this job, I finished the order and only had to clean. I cleaned the others and most of the floor and was coming up behind the saw without the brake with a long horsehair brush that I had cleaned the other tables with. I remember looking at the clock and it was eight minutes after I shut that off. I didn't see it but it was still coasting. I didn't even feel it. Went into shock almost immediately. They rushed me to the hospital, I got 30 stitches in the top of my right index and middle fingers. Doctor said I was lucky to still have them. The next day I went to the drugstore for painkillers and the pHararmacist had to call the company because I had no money to pay -- for blipping painkillers!!! They put the vice-pres of the company on who had been told the accident had happened on a faulty saw. He didn't want to pay for it. But they did.

The reason? There were too many people that knew that table saw was an accident waiting to happen. If OSHA - the FEDs - found out, the company could be sued or fined. A lot worse than 30 stitches and some painkillers. From a strict cost-benefit analysis, they got off easy and they knew it. I didn't have insurance. They didn't offer it. But they had a good worker. Did I sue or call OSHA? No, and as a result, I kept my job. So my question to you:

without the backstop of the FEDs, the threat of OSHA retaliation, would the company have paid for repair of my fingers?
Would someone else do the job if I didn't? Of course, probably for same or smaller wage. If a union was involved, it would have cost the company a lot more I bet. I can see how companies feel stuck in the middle between the FEDs on one side and unions on the other.
But without similar rights or implied protection provided as a backstop, will businesses always do the right thing?
No, if given the chance, they'll cut costs, workers be damned.

Forty hour workweek? Workman's comp? weekends? Time-and-a-half pay for overtime?

Thank the unions. And that's why we need 'em - or we'll have no rights or safety considerations in the workplace at all. Like most of the third world.
People don't question why businesses go overseas. Very often overseas there are no checks on business excess. Excess like stripping people of their dignity or depriving workers of a safe workplace.
Kill the unions! Third World here we come!!!
Thank you teaparty, may we have some more of that dehumanizing crap?
Step right up.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 1016
Punk , I feel for you , I really do , but those horror stories are everywhere. Union print shop I saw a guy's fingers mangled on a slitter / coalator and another one's arm almost ripped off WITH a regulation , union approved tee shirt , by a print roller.

I lost half my right thumb due to slipping into unit #6 of a CI print drum .. 12 feet in the air.
Reason I slipped ? The hydraulc unit was pissing oil at the rate of 5 gal an hour and maint. was too busy to fix it.

That shit happens all over , union or no union . Unions HAVE BROUGHT MANY BENEFITS TO THE WORKPLACE , but , at what cost ? To be able to control political decisions that affect us all ? To be able to outpace the majority of the population ecconomicaly ?

If , like 35 yrs ago , more people were employed by unions than the private sector , we might not see some of the disparity in our own country. But that's just part of the whole problem.

I have the feeling today that people will take what they can get .. shame this country took 500 steps back. :cry:

_________________
http://www.ssimfg.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 13894
Location: From some place in this area...
I like the title, and solutions...

Only education can set people free...

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:32 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Novi, Michigan
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Unions Are Good for the American Economy

The essence of what labor unions do—give workers a stronger voice so that they can get a fair share of the economic growth they help create—is and has always been important to making the economy work for all Americans. And unions only become more important as the economy worsens.

One of the primarily reasons why our current recession endures is that workers do not have the purchasing power they need to drive our economy. Even when times were relatively good, workers were getting squeezed. Income for the median working age household fell by about $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, and it could fall even further as the economy continues to decline. Consumer activity accounts for roughly 70 percent of our nation’s economy, and for a while workers were able to use debt to sustain their consumption. Yet debt-driven consumption is not sustainable, as we are plainly seeing.

What is sustainable is an economy where workers are adequately rewarded and have the income they need to purchase goods. This is where unions come in.

Unions paved the way to the middle class for millions of American workers and pioneered benefits such as paid health care and pensions along the way. Even today, union workers earn significantly more on average than their non-union counterparts, and union employers are more likely to provide benefits. And non-union workers—particularly in highly unionized industries—receive financial benefits from employers who increase wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

Unfortunately, declining unionization rates mean that workers are less likely to receive good wages and be rewarded for their increases in productivity. The Employee Free Choice Act, which is likely to be one of the most important issues debated by the 111th Congress, holds the promise of boosting unionization rates and improving millions of Americans’ economic standing and workplace conditions.



Unions help workers achieve higher wages
Union members in the United States earn significantly more than non-union workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers’ wages were on average 11.3 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, American workers that join a union will earn 11.3 percent more—or $2.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars—than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts.

Yet union coverage rates have been declining for several decades. In 1983, 23.3 percent of American workers were either members of a union or represented by a union at their workplace. By 2008, that portion declined to 13.7 percent.


American workers’ wage growth lags as productivity increases
Workers helped the economy grow during this time period by becoming ever more productive, but they received only a small share of the new wealth they helped create. Throughout the middle part of the 20th century—a period when unions were stronger—American workers generated economic growth by increasing their productivity, and they were rewarded with higher wages. But this link between greater productivity and higher wages has broken down.

Prior to the 1980s, productivity gains and workers’ wages moved in tandem: as workers produced more per hour, they saw a commensurate increase in their earnings. Yet wages and productivity growth have decoupled since the late 1970s. Looking from 1980 to 2008, nationwide worker productivity grew by 75.0 percent, while workers’ inflation-adjusted average wages increased by only 22.6 percent, which means that workers were compensated for only 30.2 percent of their productivity gains.

The cost of benefits—especially health insurance—has increased over time and now accounts for a greater share of total compensation than in the past, but this increase is nowhere near enough to account for the discrepancy between wage and productiv¬ity growth. For example, according to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, between 1973 and 2006 the share of labor compensation in the form of benefits rose from 12.6 percent to 19.5 percent.

If American workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity between 1980 and 2008—as they were during the middle part of the 20th century—average wages would be $28.53 per hour—42.7 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008.

Unionization rewards workers for productivity growth
Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality. But increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant, new union workers would earn an estimated $49.0 billion more in wages and salaries per year. If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over current levels, newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $25.5 billion more in wages and salaries per year. Non-union workers would also benefit as employers would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

Increased unionization would boost Americans’ annual wages
Union employers are also significantly more likely to provide benefits to their employees. Union workers nationwide are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions compared to workers with similar characteristics who were not in unions.

Tell the GOP to go suck a big one



Thank you, Spacebrother. Truer words were never spoken. I would like to ask those who are anti - union if they can name EVEN ONE instance in history when workers were better off divided rather than united. In the US, unions were once much more powerful and had many more members, and this served as something of a counterbalance to the wealthy. Now that unions are weaker and have fewer members the wealthy are trying to impoverish the rest of us and they're doing a damn good job of it - there's nobody left to stand up to them. It's unbelievable how so many people can't see this.

_________________
Hey, pass me the dog food.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1226 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 50  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group