The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flounder]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It's only going to get worse. With the revising downward to basically flat of the last couple quarters of GDP growth, and the thinking (which I read in a JP Morgan quick analysis last night) that the cuts in spending forced by the "debt deal" are going to result in an ongoing 1.75% drag on the GDP through 2012.

Um.. the spending cuts in FY 2012 are only $21 billion out of $3.6 trillion, or less than 1%. That's going to create a 1.75% drag on the economy?

[JPhillips]

There's an underlying union issue, but this bill doesn't deal with that. The ransom is the cuts in funding to rural airports only in Dem states.

I don't know much of anything about the National Mediation Board, but I'll gladly say that I think unionization raises standards of living for the working class. As with any institution there are problems, but there needs to be some balancing force against the downward pressure from management.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flounder

Um.. the spending cuts in FY 2012 are only $21 billion out of $3.6 trillion, or less than 1%. That's going to create a 1.75% drag on the economy?

1 misspoke...it was 1.5%. And it's not necessarily about the spending cuts (as I said) - it's about the whole response to the recession.

Economics Web Note

Originally Posted by Michael Feroli - JP Morgan's Chief US Economist

4) Impending fiscal drag for 2012 remains intact. The deal does nothing to extend the various stimulus measure which will expire next year: we continue to believe federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1.5%-points from GDP growth in 2012. Its possible the fiscal commission could do something to extend some measure such as the one-year 2% payroll tax holiday, though we think unlikely, as it would need to be paid for, which would be tough. If anything, the debt deal may add modestly to the fiscal drag we have penciled in for next year.

[panerd]

Maybe we can give that expert $25 billion more in TARP money. I love how throughout the last decade, especially recently, all of these economic "experts" miss everything that actually happens but are still so able to predict the future. Quite a job, I guess weather forecasting school was already full.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the fantastic news part that rankles.

Yes, I'm sure you'll complain when my thousands in gains are taxed and the idiots spend that money too. I'm sure it will go to something far less morally reprehensible than my revenue-increasing endeavors solely created by the 'leader(s)' that the American public elected.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It doesn't surprise me that you would be in favor the National Mediation Board and its tactics. Union bullying and corruption has to stop.

Agreed. Unions have become a national embarrassment.

[panerd]

Wish I could disagree on the unions (seeing as I am in one, quite a big one in the Democrats eyes) but I think it is bullshit the NEA exists for any purpose outside of local bargaining and to protect its members from frivolous lawsuits. Anything else they do (and there is a laundry list) is not in the best interest of a lot of members of its constituency. Our district is supposedly open shop but with a 90+% member rate and hard pressure from co-workers and union thugs it really isn't.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, I'm sure you'll complain when my thousands in gains are taxed and the idiots spend that money too. I'm sure it will go to something far less morally reprehensible than my revenue-increasing endeavors solely created by the 'leader(s)' that the American public elected.

I don't really care how much money you make. I'm just going to call you out when you want to present yourself as concerned about what the deficit will do to Americans and also cheer when you get to take money from "stupid people". You're concerned with your bank account, which is fine, but you can't present yourself as a defender of American's financial security.

[RainMaker]

It is funny when people who claim to be for free markets complain about unions. I guess what they mean is free markets for one side and not the other.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. Unions have become a national embarrassment.

Yeah. If we get rid of unions, stop unemployment benefits, make the bottom half pay more in income taxes, cut Medicare, and cut Social Security, prosperity will be just around the corner!

[Noop]

Obama and the Congress = Morons.

America = Stupider morons.

We are now employees of Corporate America we just don't receive any income.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is funny when people who claim to be for free markets complain about unions. I guess what they mean is free markets for one side and not the other.

I assume this is aimed at MBBF? Otherwise you are completely misinformed. I am in a union. I think it serves a great purpose in local bargaining. It does not serve a great purpose when it lobbies Congress and the state legislature on issues that are not shared by all districts. The district I teach in is often screwed money-wise by other poorer districts within Missouri due to the agreements between the NEA and state legislators. Don't really think that is the purpose of a union, do you?

[RainMaker]

That seems to be an issue between you and your union. They aren't representing your interests.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That seems to be an issue between you and your union. They aren't representing your interests.

No shit. Just like most unions do. I know plenty of people in the UAW (in fact I guess 100% of the people who were fired here due to handshake deal in Detriot) who can explain why the AFL-CIO is just a political tool of the Democratic party. I guess only people who vote Democratic should work those types of jobs?

[Buccaneer]

Free markets also mean freedom of labor to paid what the market can bear and the value to society and community. Unionizing for safe workplace, yes, but not collectively as a political force to exploit, extort and engage in racketeering. The problem is not so much with the rank and file but with the leadership, then and now. In this case, the NMB is forcing unionizing based on majority of voters, not majority of employees. I will admit my very strong anti-union bias and my faith in meritocracy and entrepreneurship.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Free markets also mean freedom of labor to paid what the market can bear and the value to society and community. Unionizing for safe workplace, yes, but not collectively as a political force to exploit, extort and engage in racketeering. The problem is not so much with the rank and file but with the leadership, then and now. In this case, the NMB is forcing unionizing based on majority of voters, not majority of employees. I will admit my very strong anti-union bias and my faith in meritocracy and entrepreneurship.

Using your collective power to negotiate a better deal is apparently extortion. Remind yourself that next time you hear someone demand a raise or they'll quit.

Employers are free to pay whatever they want. They are free to fire employees whenever they want for practically any reason they want in most states. But if an employee wants to negotiate better pay, that's wrong.

Sorry, free markets work both ways. Company has a right to pay what they want and employees have a right to work for what they want. Sort of sad to see people only want the free markets to work for one side.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

No shit. Just like most unions do. I know plenty of people in the UAW (in fact I guess 100% of the people who were fired here due to handshake deal in Detriot) who can explain why the AFL-CIO is just a political tool of the Democratic party. I guess only people who vote Democratic should work those types of jobs?

Again, that's a problem between the Union and its members. If they aren't looking out for your interests, people should vote in new leadership or not be a part of that union.

Of course they would lobby politicians and particular parties. Companies do this all the time. But again, seems like a case of free markets for one side but not the other.

[JPhillips]

At one point in my life I worked for Proctor & Gamble. They lobbied for all sorts of shit I found objectionable, but that didn't make me think corporations should be abolished.

I also learned nobody there has a sense of humor about satanism.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Free markets also mean freedom of labor to paid what the market can bear and the value to society and community. Unionizing for safe workplace, yes, but not collectively as a political force to exploit, extort and engage in racketeering. The problem is not so much with the rank and file but with the leadership, then and now. In this case, the NMB is forcing unionizing based on majority of voters, not majority of employees. I will admit my very strong anti-union bias and my faith in meritocracy and entrepreneurship.

Explain to me how industries merging into a oligopolies in any way shape or form represent what "the market can bear"? How many ISPs do you get a choice for in any market? Cell phone providers? Airlines? Rental cars? Heck, right down to how many companies make cereal or detergent when you go to a store?

It's really strange to me that all those things end up having very similar if not identical prices. And one would think that if there were a bit more competition, there would be more choices and more prices. Smells a lot like collusion to me.

Odd coincidence, that?

But if a few employees want to try to stick together, that's the free market getting abused more how?

SI

[RainMaker]

That's not even a fair analogy because there is almost an unlimited supply of labor. There are limited companies to choose from in an industry. So his views are even more hypocritical.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Again, that's a problem between the Union and its members. If they aren't looking out for your interests, people should vote in new leadership or not be a part of that union.

Of course they would lobby politicians and particular parties. Companies do this all the time. But again, seems like a case of free markets for one side but not the other.

The problem is at many places you better be a part of the union or crap starts happening to you and your stuff.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Free markets also mean freedom of labor to paid what the market can bear and the value to society and community. Unionizing for safe workplace, yes, but not collectively as a political force to exploit, extort and engage in racketeering. The problem is not so much with the rank and file but with the leadership, then and now. In this case, the NMB is forcing unionizing based on majority of voters, not majority of employees. I will admit my very strong anti-union bias and my faith in meritocracy and entrepreneurship.

Sadly, I think Unions and their political power became more necessary with Citizens United, since it's now established law that the only kind of political speech that really matters is $$$$ and individuals can't hope to compete with corporations unless they pool their resources.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't really care how much money you make. I'm just going to call you out when you want to present yourself as concerned about what the deficit will do to Americans and also cheer when you get to take money from "stupid people". You're concerned with your bank account, which is fine, but you can't present yourself as a defender of American's financial security.

My action as an investor didn't affect America's financial security one bit. I merely made the obvious statement that a bunch of non-leaders in Washington who are an embarrassment to our country made it so obvious that a downturn in the stock market was inevitable that you'd be a fool if you hadn't made a large chunk of change over this past ten days. If the idiots in charge had an iota of intelligence, these opportunities wouldn't be available. But I guess it's easier to blame me than the idiots who are the real problem. Not surprising to see it. Blaming others is the reason politicians put us in this predicament.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I also learned nobody there has a sense of humor about satanism.

Heh. I wonder how many people are actually old enough to get that joke anymore.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Free markets also mean freedom of labor to paid what the market can bear and the value to society and community. Unionizing for safe workplace, yes, but not collectively as a political force to exploit, extort and engage in racketeering. The problem is not so much with the rank and file but with the leadership, then and now. In this case, the NMB is forcing unionizing based on majority of voters, not majority of employees. I will admit my very strong anti-union bias and my faith in meritocracy and entrepreneurship.

And yet this strong faith in meritocracy and entreprenuership doesn't manifest itself in reality, no? Don't you work for a publically owned utility (I may be off - I recall a thread here from you on that regard)? Is it what's good for the goose not good for the gander?


Don't get me wrong - I thing union power in things like education is beyond the pale, and weaker unions would be a good thing overall in the public sector - but it seems somewhat hypocritical for you to complain about this.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Explain to me how industries merging into a oligopolies in any way shape or form represent what "the market can bear"? How many ISPs do you get a choice for in any market? Cell phone providers? Airlines? Rental cars? Heck, right down to how many companies make cereal or detergent when you go to a store?

It's really strange to me that all those things end up having very similar if not identical prices. And one would think that if there were a bit more competition, there would be more choices and more prices. Smells a lot like collusion to me.

Odd coincidence, that?

But if a few employees want to try to stick together, that's the free market getting abused more how?

SI

I don't know that this has nearly as much to do with unions (or lack thereof) though. By contrast, I'd say it could be more illustrative of a larger dynamic which Bucc was touching on...the higher cost of US labor coupled with the higher standard of living US citizens expect.

If you look at utility companies, ISPs, rental car companies, cereal companies, etc. they all have to use US labor to produce or deliver their product or service, to varying degrees. So, I don't think its any mystery why their pricepoints and business models force them to consolidate to the extent possible so as to reduce (expensive) redundant labor. Given the increasing level of outsourcing of educated positions as well, you're looking at less capable consumers of these products & services...thus driving down their cost to what the consumer market can/will pay. The vicious circle, if you will. (I might argue the cereal example, though, as I believe the costs are much more varied across brands and there is competition there)

Now, its a bit of a sensitive topic but...should a US worker expect to be better paid than a worker in another country? Why should they? I'd argue that they/we aren't entitled to such higher pay but we should be earning it. If that makes sense, then I believe the next logical question is how?

The "how" part is where we need vision & strategy. 2 things our government cannot do because we have knuckleheads at the federal level debating social programs that should be (imho) debated at the state or community level. I firmly hold that if we get these things (to the extent possible) out of the house & senate talking points warfare then the debate is more about ideas for national policies like energy, defense, and technology advancement...and how the US is able to excel at each of these against our competitors and enemies alike.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We are crashing.

Market Report - Aug. 2, 2011 - CNNMoney

Wait wait wait wait wait - I thought raising the debt ceiling, even without actual reform was going to AVOID economic catastrophe?

[Buccaneer]

I knew I should not have brought up unions when partisan emotions are running so high - Sorry. It is truly a bias that I have (we all have such things). I am not being hypocritical either. There are no unions, that I am aware of, in my company. The only ones in the whole municipal structure I know of are police and fire. Everyone is and should be an at-will employee, just like most everyone is in my field (IT). If I do not like my pay, my workload or the people I work with/for, I am very much free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. If my experience and skills are in demand, then I would work for someone that wants to hire me. In other words, there is no obligation or right for my (or any) company to keep me employed. Just like I have the freedom to not to choose to work here anymore. If I have not gotten any pay increases (let alone raises) for 3 years (as I have and even net has gone down with increased medical contributions), then it is my choice whether to remain here under those conditions or to go somewhere else. It is unfathomnable to me for any single or group of employees to demand job security and higher wages when a free market does not give you the right to such, esp. over the past few years - only the right to seek higher wages elsewhere. There is an unlimited supply of potential employees in a limited market of employers. The best companies will hire the best employees but I have not chosen to go to such companies because I value other priorities more highly. So I am content staying here with no raises and declining net pay. I am expendable, you are expendable but you are also free to become a free agent if you think you are good enough to get more money (I do not favor long-term contracts in sports). And really the reality that I have to keep working on my skills if I want to stay employed because I can be replaced (they have that right if I am underskilled for my pay scale). Freedom (and free markets) gives you the opportunity to succeed but it also has the mechanisms for failure - they are in proportion of each other. (Finally, regarding our free market economy, we demand low prices as the common benefit to us all, esp. those in the lower income brackets.) Just to be clear, a safety culture is also critical and no one should have to work under unsafe working conditions.

[ISiddiqui]

That's all fine and good as to your beliefs, but the question of why a supposed free market would frown on a bunch of free market actors joining together for better bargaining power would be objectionable.

Yah, unions try to exert political force, but this isn't exactly a pure free market and business are doing the same thing on their benefit.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's all fine and good as to your beliefs, but the question of why a supposed free market would frown on a bunch of free market actors joining together for better bargaining power would be objectionable.

And what if they are not able to get their demands met? Should they then hold the company hostage? Should they hold the US economy hostage (to exaggerate a bit)?

Yah, unions try to exert political force, but this isn't exactly a pure free market and business are doing the same thing on their benefit.

Yeah I know. I do react strongly against the political power the labor unions have had in this county for many, many decades (and many examples to the detriment of the rank/file - e.g., pensions, racketeering). Democrats will not speak out against unions, whether good or bad, because they are a voting bloc, so that's given in an argument like this.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I don't know that this has nearly as much to do with unions (or lack thereof) though. By contrast, I'd say it could be more illustrative of a larger dynamic which Bucc was touching on...the higher cost of US labor coupled with the higher standard of living US citizens expect.

If you look at utility companies, ISPs, rental car companies, cereal companies, etc. they all have to use US labor to produce or deliver their product or service, to varying degrees. So, I don't think its any mystery why their pricepoints and business models force them to consolidate to the extent possible so as to reduce (expensive) redundant labor. Given the increasing level of outsourcing of educated positions as well, you're looking at less capable consumers of these products & services...thus driving down their cost to what the consumer market can/will pay. The vicious circle, if you will. (I might argue the cereal example, though, as I believe the costs are much more varied across brands and there is competition there)

Now, its a bit of a sensitive topic but...should a US worker expect to be better paid than a worker in another country? Why should they? I'd argue that they/we aren't entitled to such higher pay but we should be earning it. If that makes sense, then I believe the next logical question is how?

The "how" part is where we need vision & strategy. 2 things our government cannot do because we have knuckleheads at the federal level debating social programs that should be (imho) debated at the state or community level. I firmly hold that if we get these things (to the extent possible) out of the house & senate talking points warfare then the debate is more about ideas for national policies like energy, defense, and technology advancement...and how the US is able to excel at each of these against our competitors and enemies alike.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And what if they are not able to get their demands met? Should they then hold the company hostage? Should they hold the US economy hostage (to exaggerate a bit)?

This is why I think the union and oligopoly argument goes hand in hand. Aren't AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint basically "holding consumers hostage" as there are only a couple of providers? United, America, Delta (you even have Southwest but they just bought out the other "low cost" carrier in Airtran to avoid competition). Again, it's no coincidence that the providers all offer service within a few percentage points of each other.

Now let's flip this toward workers. I'm sure no one is going to prevent AT&T from buying out T-Mobile. AT&T will buy them out and significantly cut that workforce so there are more unemployed telecom workers. If you're a telecom worker- that's one less place where you can market your skills to. You've went from only 4 places (so, again, an artificial cap on your value) to 3.

At the end of the day, the consumer loses with higher prices. The workers have one less competitor for their wages. And we wonder why our standard of living is going down. There needs to be some sort upward pressure on wages by workers and allowing them to band together as a force seems like a valid way to do this.

As I see it, you're saying it's ok for companies to band together but not workers? I just don't understand.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As I see it, you're saying it's ok for companies to band together but not workers? I just don't understand.

The idea of a union may be fine, but they've served their purpose in most industries (safer working conditions primarily) and are now finding things to justify their existence that are getting in the way. When it requires a union guy to PLUG SOMETHING INTO AN OUTLET, things have become absurd, let alone the higher level issues discussed here.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And what if they are not able to get their demands met? Should they then hold the company hostage? Should they hold the US economy hostage (to exaggerate a bit)?

Should a company fire a bunch of employees if their profits are down?

I don't care about unions in any political way. In fact, I've defended what the Governor did up in Wisconsin rather strongly (and took shit on it here from people). I'm more defending the free market idea to work both ways. If companies can hire/fire people at will based on their own interests, an employee should be able to work based on their own interests. I would support a union negotiating for a better deal in the same way I'd support you walking into your boss' office and demanding a better salary and telling them you'll walk without it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The idea of a union may be fine, but they've served their purpose in most industries (safer working conditions primarily) and are now finding things to justify their existence that are getting in the way. When it requires a union guy to PLUG SOMETHING INTO AN OUTLET, things have become absurd, let alone the higher level issues discussed here.

I don't know. I look at teachers in many states that work in an oversaturated market getting decent salaries, pensions, and other benefits. I'd say the unions do a damn good job in that regard.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know. I look at teachers in many states that work in an oversaturated market getting decent salaries, pensions, and other benefits. I'd say the unions do a damn good job in that regard.

And we're unable to fire the bad ones...

[JediKooter]

Not responding to anyone specific, just commenting on unions in general...

I think there's a need/place for unions in some industries, but, not all industries. The main problem I have with unions is, they cater to the lowest common denominator of employee. Plus, the 1950s/1960s union mentality needs a serious upgrade. I've never understood why it always has to be so contentious between labor and management, when both should be striving for the same goal, which is keeping the company viable so you can continue to pay its employees, give bonuses, grow the company, etc...

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This is why I think the union and oligopoly argument goes hand in hand. Aren't AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint basically "holding consumers hostage" as there are only a couple of providers? United, America, Delta (you even have Southwest but they just bought out the other "low cost" carrier in Airtran to avoid competition). Again, it's no coincidence that the providers all offer service within a few percentage points of each other.

Well, there are a lot of reasons for pricing within range of each other. Part of that is because they have similar costs & scaling efficiencies; while the other is that their rates are harder to keep private these days. I can tell you on the telecom front...they do not hang out and discuss pricing strategies and in fact, I can say that there is a lot of discussion of what the "other guy" is doing which has little collusion (more like spying).

Now let's flip this toward workers. I'm sure no one is going to prevent AT&T from buying out T-Mobile. AT&T will buy them out and significantly cut that workforce so there are more unemployed telecom workers. If you're a telecom worker- that's one less place where you can market your skills to. You've went from only 4 places (so, again, an artificial cap on your value) to 3.

Absolutely. I'm a fan of competition as it is not just competition for consumers, but competition for workers as well. This has benefited me first hand as well.

At the end of the day, the consumer loses with higher prices. The workers have one less competitor for their wages. And we wonder why our standard of living is going down. There needs to be some sort upward pressure on wages by workers and allowing them to band together as a force seems like a valid way to do this.

As I see it, you're saying it's ok for companies to band together but not workers? I just don't understand.

SI

I am not personally against the concept of organized labor negotiation.

My only issue is what we've seen practically with things like the auto industry. The large unions tend to form as a counter measure to large corporations/industries when there is an established practice of work. The problem here is that we see concessions given over time to unions that are not financially sustainable just to keep business going. As a result with any massive and unsustainable entity/industry in the US... "too big to fail" factor kicks in and both the union AND the corporation are thereby rewarded for screwing things up because we're reminded how hard they work, how tough the fallout would be to other ancillary businesses, etc, etc, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And we're unable to fire the bad ones...

Take that up with the politicians who put that deal in place. I think everyone here would love to negotiate their own job in a way that they couldn't be fired.

[RainMaker]

We certainly don't want to encourage education.

Debt ceiling deal to hit grad students hard - Aug. 1, 2011

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And what if they are not able to get their demands met? Should they then hold the company hostage? Should they hold the US economy hostage (to exaggerate a bit)?

Isn't that one of the consequences of freedom of association? Of course the company can try to fire all of them.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We certainly don't want to encourage education.

Debt ceiling deal to hit grad students hard - Aug. 1, 2011

Best pithy summation of the debt deal that I have heard: We have decided that protecting entitlements is so important that we are going to scrap all of the programs that will help us to grow the economy enough to let us keep paying for the entitlements.

Basically, I don't blame the politicians here for giving the people what they want. I blame the people for wanting such stupid stuff. By making SS/Medicare untouchable, the people have decided that defense, infrastructure, and education will go by the wayside. There are not words for how shortsighted this thinking is. But people are shortsighted. And there isn't a politician out there who will try to talk them out of it.

[RainMaker]

I can't wait till we are complaining even more about other countries kicking our ass in science.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Not responding to anyone specific, just commenting on unions in general...

I think there's a need/place for unions in some industries, but, not all industries. The main problem I have with unions is, they cater to the lowest common denominator of employee. Plus, the 1950s/1960s union mentality needs a serious upgrade. I've never understood why it always has to be so contentious between labor and management, when both should be striving for the same goal, which is keeping the company viable so you can continue to pay its employees, give bonuses, grow the company, etc...

I'd be all for the German model where employees have seats on corporate boards. I think that would help build a partnership.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We certainly don't want to encourage education.

Debt ceiling deal to hit grad students hard - Aug. 1, 2011

I'm okay with this. If I understand it correctly, the cuts are to students in graduate (e.g. post BA) program and the savings ensures Pell grants continues (for lower income kids) in undergrad programs.

I fully believe we should help all students into college or vocational/trade school. After the initial 2-4 years, I'm good with the student being responsible for his own education.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Well, there are a lot of reasons for pricing within range of each other. Part of that is because they have similar costs & scaling efficiencies; while the other is that their rates are harder to keep private these days. I can tell you on the telecom front...they do not hang out and discuss pricing strategies and in fact, I can say that there is a lot of discussion of what the "other guy" is doing which has little collusion (more like spying).



Absolutely. I'm a fan of competition as it is not just competition for consumers, but competition for workers as well. This has benefited me first hand as well.




I am not personally against the concept of organized labor negotiation.

My only issue is what we've seen practically with things like the auto industry. The large unions tend to form as a counter measure to large corporations/industries when there is an established practice of work. The problem here is that we see concessions given over time to unions that are not financially sustainable just to keep business going. As a result with any massive and unsustainable entity/industry in the US... "too big to fail" factor kicks in and both the union AND the corporation are thereby rewarded for screwing things up because we're reminded how hard they work, how tough the fallout would be to other ancillary businesses, etc, etc, etc.

It's important to remember that in many of those situations the trade off was lower salaries for higher benefits. It was only when the company/state stopped funding the pensions at the rate promised that there were problems. NJ is a perfect example. If Whitman and her successors hadn't raided the NJ state pension fund Christie wouldn't have needed to deal so harshly with public employee unions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's important to remember that in many of those situations the trade off was lower salaries for higher benefits.

I think conventional wisdom says there is some truth in this but would suggest that this is not true in all (e.g. the automotive industry pre-bankruptcy).

I haven't thought too much about the union/capitalism discussion, however I am in the HR systems field and have worked with HR management.

There maybe niche space where unions are still needed, but IMO a pilot, flight attendant, teacher etc. unions are not needed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I fully believe we should help all students into college or vocational/trade school.

After seeing what I've seen happen with a relative's Pell Grant money, you might want to re-think that, at least vis a vis Pell (apparently Pell doesn't do a very good job of taking other funding into consideration, so it becomes essentially "mad money")

In this instance (the changes mentioned in the article) the gov't did what gov't seems to be good at: putting money where it will accomplish the least amount possible.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's important to remember that in many of those situations the trade off was lower salaries for higher benefits.

This is always the case to some extent. But the key is sustainable.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd be all for the German model where employees have seats on corporate boards. I think that would help build a partnership.

That doesn't sound too bad actually. I don't know anything about the German model, but, does it seem to cut down on the management vs labor struggle?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That doesn't sound too bad actually. I don't know anything about the German model, but, does it seem to cut down on the management vs labor struggle?

It's called Co-determination and was started in (West) Germany shortly after WWII.

Co-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia