The tide slowly turns

Tagged:  

From the Detroit Free Press-WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court
on Tuesday temporarily blocked the
National Labor Relations Board from
making millions of businesses put up
posters informing workers of their right to
form a union.

The rule requiring most private employers
to display the posters was supposed to
take effect April 30, but the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia said
that can't happen until legal questions are
resolved.

The temporary injunction followed a
federal judge's ruling in South Carolina last
week that the labor board exceeded
congressional authority when it approved
the poster requirement in 2011. A federal
judge in Washington, D.C., had previously
found the NLRB rule acceptable, but limited
how the agency could enforce it.

Business groups have complained the
posters are an unfair government effort to
promote union organizing. The labor board
contends the posters help workers more
clearly understand their rights and
protections under federal labor law.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120418/BUSINESS07/204180333/NLRB-poster-m...

No votes yet

I'm OK with this decision. Other than posting basic labor law, we shouldn't force employers to keep posting labor laws that are more extraneous to the business. In other words, the business can run without a union, hence there's no need to post union-centric labor law in every business.

Taxpayers will be happy to note that the UAW--you know, the people we spent millions on to save their jobs--are having a big conference at Bally's in Las Vegas. There are banquets and receptions--everything you need to manufacture and sell vehicles.

God forbid that the UAW showed some humility and held a teleconference. Let's keep that in mind next time they come looking for a handout.

"the people we spent millions on to save their jobs"

You mean Wall Street right Quief?

Just like the GSA. The taxpayers paid for this one too.

MikeyA

Union membership is the lowest it has been in America in 70 YEARS!! Less than 12% of all workers are unionized. Less than 7% of private sector workers are in unions. Yet, conservatives want to keep beating the proverbial dead horse!

What has killing the unions accomplished? If unionism were the problem, with over 93% of America's private sector workers NOT in unions, why is the United States emerging so slowly from the worst economy we've had in over 70 years?

Union membership in the private sector is none of my business. I've never demonstrated against that.

But as you so clearly omit from your diatribe, the private/public union fractions totally switched. As the private sector's unionization share fell, the public sector's share rose. Effectively, unionization fled to the public sector, to hide in all that free government cheese.

That's what parasites do; they find a rich source to feed on. And that's what cowards do, similarly; they flee to where it's easy and safe.

The private sector told the unions that "we can't afford you", and closed down lots of factories and offices to prove it. The problem now is that we have to send the same message to the parasites in the public unions:

"You're lucky to have a job, now shut the fuck up and pay the real costs of your health insurance and pension."

That cheese ain't free, GZ. I'm absolutely sick about my dear mother's property taxes - the government is trying its best to tax her out of her home.

Mom could have a nice life for herself if it weren't for the taxes in Sylvania, most of which go to support the Sylvania City Schools. Then there's the inflated labor cost that the government and the park system cheerfully pays.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Well, of course the cheese isn't absolutely free. It's only free to the recipients.

And I ever struggle to point out to people that they should go to the polls and vote down all these increases in property taxes. Largely I believe I'm failing.

Overall, union membership is LESS THAN 12%!! Get it? 88% OF ALL WORKERS ARE NON-UNION!! GZ -- As usual, you never allow facts to get in the way of your opinions. It is NOT true that, "Unionization fled to the public sector." In the year 2000, 37.5% of pubic employees in America were in unions. In 2011, it was down slightly to 37.0%. Even so, this means that 63% OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN AMERICA TODAY ARE NON-UNION WORKERS!!

GZ...You ARE correct that the private sector told union workers they were too expensive and closed factories and other businesses. BUT WHERE DID THOSE BUSINESSES GO?? WHERE DID THOSE JOBS GO?? Did most of those businesses hire non-union American workers? NO!!! They went to foreign countries where they could pay the workers a small fraction of what even non-union American workers would be paid. These greedy 1 per centers also wanted to avoid those pesky American environmental laws which are designed to enhance the health for all on this planet in the future!

And government policies passed under the leadership of George Bush #43 and the Republican majorities in Congress, encouraged American businesses to close in America and open in countries where workers could be more easily exploited. GZ...you are supporting the most unpatriotic movement America has ever known. It is a movement which places profits of mulit-national corporations, even those with American names and American headquarters, first, and places American workers and our national security last!

Wow, that's a lot of words for having avoided the topic.

I don't care what the private sector does with labor relations. It's none of my fucking business and it's also none of yours. Want to run a union shop? Pull millions of dollars out of your own ass and spend it in such profligacy.

The topic is as ever, the problem of loading up the PUBLIC sector with unnecessary expenses. High union wages in the public sector are as economically unnecessary as are massive GSA jaunts to Vegas. They are wasteful. As the true funder of the public sector, among all the rest of my fellow workers, I demand the same cheap labor be put to our benefit as corporations do today with retail offerings.

So I demand the obliteration of unions from the public sector. I don't have to pay for them as my fellows don't have to. We're the real owners and it's time our demands were met.

As for your silly pension, it's time to recognize we're going to kill that sort of thing, hence you need to downsize your lifestyle. I already explained you're above the middle class and occupy a privileged position. You only speak from self interest. But a lower tax load upon everyone is my true goal. I have the public's best interest in mind; you do not.

Also, for the record, the singularly unpatriotic act here is using the legal system via labor laws to deprive a business owner of control of his business. No wonder so many owners shut down and fled. Labor laws today are a total affront to the notions of private property and individual liberty. They are a huge mistake that hopefully we will start to fix across the nation, starting in Ohio and Wisconsin.

In case anyone believes this POV is self-serving, I'm not a business owner nor have I ever been one. But onerous laws make the overhead costs prohibitive for running any sort of business in these United States. These laws should be repealed forthwith or we'll never see economic growth again, not even talking about the social benefits of aligning the law with personal liberty.

Dale will never understand or accept these things, since he's a for-real Communist, and he collects his daily bread from the sweat off the brows of those fools who remain working and paying taxes in this horrible environment of corporate and union socialism.

I repeat: 68% OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS ARE NON-UNION!! You've won!! Please, please. please don't let facts get in the way of your opinions...Never, ever, ever!!

And yet the unions dump MILLION into lobbying for raised federal minimum wage every year. This affects everyone and every business.

Why do they do this? Do they care about every worker? No, they write contracts for primarily part-time workers where their pay must remain a certain % above minimum wage thus a raise in minimum wage = raise for their workers which in turn = boost in union dues because these are a % of pay.

MikeyA

Your "solution" ultimately leads to every American worker earning as little as workers do in China. If that happens, how long will it be until military pay and perks are cut, too? Remember I don't want that! But, if competing remuneration is lowered, guess what gets lowered next?

Conservative politicians are doing the bidding for giant, unpatriotic corporate leaders. The argument will come that America just can't afford the full Defense budget, so if those in the military now will just take less in remuneration, we can cut the budget and not lose our effectiveness. And, if other retirement systems, including Social Security, have to be cut, military retirements will have to be cut, too. America just can't afford it! After all, with everyone else making less, and having less for retirement, shouldn't military personnel pitch in?

Again, I want to be clear. I OPPOSE this thinking. But, I'll guarantee you that common soldiers are soon to be on the chopping block so that we can preserve tax cuts for the giant corporations and the individuals in the top 1% of income!

"Your "solution" ultimately leads to every American worker earning as little as workers do in China. If that happens, how long will it be until military pay and perks are cut, too?" You don't know what you're talking about. The only time this country has seen massive cuts in wages were when immigrants were imported specifically to do just that.

Secondly, are you aware that a good deal of our military currently gets paid only $57 more a week than someone working full time on minimum wage. Oh yeah and those military members can be made to work over 60 hours a week which puts their wages at less, and for the last two years the COLA increases have been less than 2%, prior to that the increases never topped 3.5%, whereas when the Dems took control of congress in 2006 they immediately increased federal minimum wage 23%!!! Very soon our military will earn less than someone earning minimum wage (and benefits are deducted from military base pay AFTER the numbers I quoted earlier).

AND in the history of the minimum wage there is only 1 time in history of the minimum wage the 23 times they've waged where it didn't negatively affect unemployment, and that was in the middle of a huge economic boom.

MikeyA

Our soldiers are already on the chopping block and it's not for corporations. It's for more government spending.

Are you aware that a huge part of paying for Obamacare is trying to increase military retireees payments into tricare by over 300%.

Now yes this affects military retirees but it also affects..... military widows. So, sorry Mrs HusbanddiedinAfghanistan"thegoodwar" but now you've lost your husband, you must raise 2 kids by yourself, and we're going to charge you 300% more for the healthcare of you and them!

So quit with the "Evil Giant Corporations" bit. Because of the wasteful government spending you support the woman in that instance will now need to work 2 minimum wage jobs to pay for her children's healthcare, and now because she's working without another parent, daycare as well. But hey, I guess if we pay for Social Service workers to sit in school we'll all end up hunky dory in the end. YAY GOVERNMENT!

MikeyA

The problem is that YOU'RE NOT on your side.

If wages go down for most, they'll go down for all! Middle and low income people have lost while the top 10% and, even more so, the top 1%, have gained over the past 10 years or so. Working folks like you and me are sinking inexorably toward the level of Chinese workers.

Meanwhile, the top 1% are cashing their dividend checks, and paying their reduced rate on capital gains, laughing at us arguing over the crumbs they trickle down to us!! And the laws you support will allow future generations of the super-rich to pass down every penny to people like Kim and Khloe and Paris and Nikki, while your kids and mine work for less in the future!

But, keep on voting for those who help the top 1% and don't give a rat's pitoot about you or me or our families!

"Working folks like you and me are sinking inexorably toward the level of Chinese workers."

I marvel at how you use a term like 'inexorably' and yet insist that there's something structural and collective that we can do about it. We can't. Globalism sets a global price for labor, and that inexorably sets wages in all nations, which inexorably means wages in the USA must fall, since the average of many low wages and a few high wages inexorably becomes a fairly low value.

We're not voting for that 1%. We're voting for our freedom from being taxed to death. We can't sustain high taxes and low wages for ourselves. Your 'golden class' has to collapse, one way or another.

It's funny you mention these four "Kim and Khloe and Paris and Nikki," because their notoriety came from their parents but they amassed far more wealth than their parents would give them because of their own ventures, as stupid as those ventures are.

"If wages go down for most, they'll go down for all! Middle and low income people have lost while the top 10% and, even more so, the top 1%, have gained over the past 10 years or so. Working folks like you and me are sinking inexorably toward the level of Chinese workers." So please show me where raising the minimum wage prevents this? Interesting since the gap on this has GROWN since the minimum wage has been raised.

MikeyA

I'm so happy that you're addressing this particular post! One important goal of the international FREE labor union movement, (And by FREE, I mean free of Communist or any other governmental control.), is to average worldwide wages UP. If current U.S. Government policies continue, the move downward is "inexorable". You seem to accept, even embrace, the demise of the middle class in America. I DON'T!!

I want our government to change policies, and be tougher, especially on the Communist Chinese! We must have reasonable trade relations. We must insist upon their workers getting a living wage. We must insist upon ENFORCEMENT of environmental laws, which are often already on the books, but ignored. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have been far too submissive, most often to placate the giant corporations, especially with the slave state known as Communist China!!

We can't be a successful society and continue to kowtow to the least patriotic among us who occupy the offices of multi-national corporations, often headquartered in America!

Ok, let's try it your way.

Let's take oil for example. Now when we talk about oil as an import I know you think of Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern country. Yet because the US has been trying to bring stability to Africa and thus we now import more oil from Nigeria than anywhere else.

SO, under Dale's plan we must now restrict imports to/from Nigeria until they agree to pay a living wage. I'm sure that will work out wonderfully.

Dale, it was the liberals who first advocated globalization, but because the unions, their biggest special interest, are against it suddenly they're against it. The same will be true with Climate change. It's being used as a reason to upend the global social structure and the more we discuss environmental controls to prevent it we're coming more and more into union territory and you're begining to see the unions come more and more against it.

MikeyA

His solution is to work on many forms of alternative energy resources, but to convert as quickly as possible to internal combustion engines which use natural gas instead of petroleum. The U.S. has, comparatively, a LOT more natural gas than we have petroleum. AND it is relatively easy to convert capital equipment to producing internal combustion engines which use natural gas rather than gasoline or diesel fuel. AND the byproducts of consuming natural gas are more environmentally friendly than are those from gasoline or diesel. And to all of this add the fact that natural gas is currently so much cheaper than is gasoline.

China is a much bigger problem and a much bigger trading partner than is Nigeria. The petroleum business is truly worldwide. If we don't buy Nigerian oil, they'll sell it to Europe, or Japan, or China...they don't really care. Nigeria is a very poor example, because it is one of the poorest countries in the world. The main reason for this is that Nigerian families maintain high birth rates even though death rates have dropped significantly over the past 40 years. If current trends continue, Nigeria could reach the 300 million mark in population before the end of this century!

China, on the other hand, is no longer poor by Third World standards. China has the second biggest economy in the world today!! China maintains severe limits on U.S. imports. That's one main reason why so many U.S. companies are moving their manufacturing plants to China. The Chinese consumers are gobbling up products at a record rate! I'm watching CNBC right now, and they're talking about how one reason Apple still looks like a good investment for the future is because of the growth in sales of Apple's products in China!!

One thing driving up petroleum prices is that so many more Chinese are driving cars, instead of riding bicycles! The figure I heard reported is that 80% of Chinese auto buyers today are first-time auto buyers! One reason that speculators are willing to bid up future petroleum prices is because of presumed massive increases in the number Chinese auto owners! This makes Pickens's solution even a more pressing issue.

I have been associated with unions at the local, state, and national levels. I served on the International Relations Committee of the American Federation of Teachers. For all the writing here about unionism and Communism, the unions in Communist China are under the total control of the Communist government. That is one main reason why the average Chinese worker makes a fraction of what the average American worker makes. When unions are free, the life of common folks improve. You seem content to let wages here fall. WAGES MUST BE RAISED IN CHINA! This will help all workers everywhere!

Dale, you need to read back into some of my previous comments. I've long been a proponent of CNG because it's cheap, we are the biggest exporter, converting a petroleum vehicle to a CNG is relatively easy, all we need are the logistical means of distributing. I've said this in several threads on here.

You are talking about ending Globalization because you have a problem with China. As GZ pointed out Globalization will at least slow if not cut into US wages, but globalization serves a purpose to bridge the gap between the first and third world.

Nigeria is not poor because of it's birth rate. If you believe that would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

"the unions in Communist China are under the total control of the Communist government." The terms Communist and Socialist have been used incorrectly on this site. However your arguement here is generally the basis behind the difference between Leninism and Maoism. So should the working class organize the Vangard party and rule or should the Vangard party organize the working class? You use this word "free" to describe how unions should be, yet you reject freedom for the companies that employ them or reject the freedom from the worker from the union itself. I remember Animal Farm: "All Animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

MikeyA

Communism. as practiced in China today, is merely an excuse to run a slave state! When the party totally controls a union, it can do nothing to help workers. That's the way it's been in China for at least 70 years!

Marx did not believe that overwhelmingly rural societies like those of Russia and China in the early to mid-20th Century could have a Communist Revolution. Lenin and Mao wrote a LOT of things to justify how this could happen. They were all lies, of course. They were excuses for the two to set up autocratic, unresponsive, totalitarian governments!

As I pointed out, you're beating a dead horse! Over 93% of workers in America's private sector today are NON-UNION!! You've won. Stop using unionism as a reason for problems in America! And America with so much less union membership is how much more prosperous than America was when there were more union members?

You're buying the argument of the top 1%. You're blaming common working folks for the problems hatched in board rooms, and bought and paid for in legislative halls in state capitals and D.C., including trade policy with the Communist slave state of China!

If taxes in the 1990s were so high, why wasn't there a deluge of American billionaires swarming to other countries for residency? All I seek is to return the top earners to the levels we had in a very prosperous time, with a balanced budget, under a moderate Democratic president!

There are three major factions, Ibo, Hausa, and Yoruba, and many minor ones. This was NOT a natural occurrence. They were thrown together by the British when the British sought to carve out an area of control in the part of Africa that was primarily controlled by the French. That is part of the bitter legacy of European colonial rule around the world!

However, that doesn't mean that population overgrowth in Nigeria is not a major contributing factor to its high rate of poverty. Why do you think that both India and China (more coercively) have done so much to limit population growth?? And both have become much more prosperous, too! DUH!!

"You seem to accept, even embrace, the demise of the middle class in America."

Like most Liberals and their Communist brethren, you never seem to accept economic law. We don't have to destroy the middle class, but the middle class has to live with a significantly lower standard of living. As wages must fall, the government needs to get the fuck off our backs. But that's not happening, and in fact it's only increasing our loads, and you accept that since you're in the Golden Class-- a guy collecting his pension and health care from the taxpayers.

You seem to believe in the face of all available evidence otherwise that you can keep the "middle class" (which for you only means the Golden Class (unionized workers)) purely as a matter of legislative fiat.

The setting of the Global Wage inexorably means that American wages must fall. You know why? IT'S CALLED "MATH"! And if American wages must fall, our absurdly huge government has to starve and shrink. But that's not in your self interest, you publicly-pensioned fuck, and so you PRETEND that you have all this concern for the middle class (however you define it). We're not fooled. You can't turn back the clock, and any attempt to take control of capital only makes it flee all the faster (which explains much of Toledo's recent history). Toledo is a model form of foolish fiat government that believes it can control capital despite the clear evidence that it's fleeing like from a goddamn fire. And you are one of its beneficiaries, so that's why we get all this balderdash from you.

I find the overuse of the F-word very offensive! No further responses from me until you clean up your language.

You can't argue the topic, You've already gone silent on other of my postings on that issue alone.

I was never actually arguing with you. I was only using you as a sounding board to reveal to others reading here about how demented your class of Liberal really is.

At any rate, enjoy your unearned pension and healthcare for now. We'll be zapping all that soon enough, bringing to a close the Dark Age of your hyperexpensive and wholly uneconomic golden class.

100% of government workers should be non-union. We the people can't afford to pay union wages, benefits and pensions.

You disagree only (and I mean ONLY) because you're one of them.

I won't win until the unions sucking money out of the public's wallet are obliterated. And that hasn't been the trend in the government workforce, sadly. Which was my point in the first place.

You obviously have no idea what Communism is. To you, a Communist is anyone who disagrees with your vision of politics.

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engles and as practiced by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exists in no major nation in the world today.

Meanwhile, American companies are falling all over themselves to do business in and with Communist China. The biggest Communist supporters today are in the board rooms of giant international corporations, many of which have American names and American headquarters. They are the least patriotic of all Americans!!

I don't need to read up about Communism. It's not a distant and historical artifact; it's here and now, with government unions. We the people pay and pay and pay while these so-called workers become a new class in the nation, situated above the middle class but below the rich. I call them the "golden class".

To me, a Communist is a guy like you who expects to keep getting paid when he wasn't worth the money in the first place. Communists, Socialists and Unionists: These are all the same sort of beast in the USA. They reject the core idea that merit determines involvement, compensation and advancement.

As for what American companies do with their money: It's not my concern and neither is it yours. You're supposed to have LIBERTY. Perhaps that's the real word here that somebody (hint hint) needs to read up on.

you either don't know what Communism means, or anyone who disagrees with you is labled a Communist.

You belong in the 1950s with the McCarthyites!

Dale, do you actually work at being this ignorant or do you come by it naturally?

GZ knows more about government, philosophy and current events than you'll ever know - unless you take your head out of your ass and start learning what you should have learned in high school.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

"We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it," boasted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, to the Las Vegas Sun.

I could care less about how many people belong to unions. What I don't like is how political they've become. In my household, we haven't bought a UAW car since 1990. I refuse to put money in the coffers of big unions that in turn elect tax and spend Socialists.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.