Gould 0738 wrote:

Unions may have had a place in society at one time, but they are not
counterproductive. All they do is breed nepotism and interfere with free
competition. How is it that someone who moves boxes around on a dock can
make as much as I make with two degrees and state licensure as a
Forensic
Engineer? Granted, cost of living has some factor, but explain to me how
the two jobs are of equal worth. Unskilled labor vs. technical and legal
analysis.

Huh? What happened to

free
competition. ?

If the box movers can convince society that their services are worth more than
Forensic Engineers, more power to them.
Naturally, jealous Forensic Engineers will disagree.

That's just it, if left to the free market to decide, this would not be
the case at all. Only through the artificial inflation of worth as
defined by their representative UNION, does this disparity in job skill
versus wage, exist.


By the way, some of those guys "moving boxes" (longshore work is far more
technical and dangerous than that, btw) probably have more education than many
engineers. Some of them used to have white collar jobs, before "free
competition" prevailed and the guys working for $2/hour US in Russia or India
won the engineering and accounting jobs.

None of the education in your example, directly relates to the job at
hand, or the skill needed to do it.



Where I live, you can't do random drug testing at the fire dept. because the
union won't allow it. Some stoned jackass is going to kill somebody one of
these days as a direct result of union policy.

When that happens, the jackass and his two immediate supervisors should be
fired- or maybe jailed.

But why should we wait until after a tragedy? Drug testing is the norm
for many companies now. Why should union paranoia be allowed to
interfere with health and public safety?

You can't sit around the firehouse and get stoned
without somebody knowing about it. You might find it surprising, but pee tests
are almost TOTALLY defeatable. There's an OTC product called "Clean Pee" that
works almost 100 percent of the time.

You have to shake your head in disbelief at the premise for the
development of that product, and the character of the inventor. Sort of
the same vein as the guy who sells pirate cable TV boxes.

Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

I have yet to see a lib who is anti union. Coincidence?

So exactly why are you such a strong union supporter Chuck? Because you are
a lib?

Because I believe stongly in reaching agreement through negotiation.
Negotiation is only meaningful between two parties with equal power. If the
average worker were sent to report,, individually, to a comittee of suits and
explain why he thought he deserved a certain income, there would be no equity
in power. The management would be in a position to influence the worker far
more than an individual worker could ever influence the management.

A valid concept. But like power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely, such is the same in the union world. Where unions were once
the savior of the worker, they are now the cancer of industry. There
are many stories of industries (like steel) which have closed down
thanks to the unions strangling unreasonable salaries and benefits from
management, and preventing them from competing in the global economy.
What good is it to be saying that you USED to be a $30/hr steelworker,
who is BTW, unemployed now.


And just how have the unions improved the lives of workers in the 21st
century?

Puhleeze. The 21st century is two years old already. Let's look at the 20th,
and compare the average worker's workweek, health benefits, standard of living,
etc in 1900 vs. 1999.

There is a big difference if you split the last century in half. The
first half of the century saw the union in its most favorable light.
Equality for workers, and the establishment of labor standards which
were eventually written into federal law.
By the end of the second half of the century the union has pretty much
outlived its original purpose, and its usefulness as well. Today, the
union is nothing more than a bloated beaurocracy in itself. It preaches
uniformity in work. Those who strive to do better, are "encouraged" to
not "make the other guys look bad". Al the while the whole process of
grievances, union stewards, and the like, do little more than allow the
union to prevent the company from firing a worker who is unproductive.
This is little more than a microcosm of socialism, which dos little more
than foster an air of mediocrity.

Today the union is little more than the bastion of unskilled labor. They
are the last remnants of the industrial age, which has all but gone from
this country (and people wonder why?). In the professional skilled
trades, there is little need for a union, as the demand for skilled jobs
usually exceeds the supply of qualified candidates. Companies actually
compete with attractive salary and benefit packages in order to attract
the brightest and best candidates.


Why should all union workers get the same pay increases despite their
contributions to
the company? Why should slackers get the same as the go-getters?

It's called the principle of collective bargaining. All the workers, together,
negotiate more powerfully. The majority of workers voluntarily agree to accept
a common pay rate. The go-getters are rewarded more than the slackers.

And how is that exactly? You said it yourself, it's a "collective"
bargaining unit. No stars are rewarded, and no slackers are punished.
They all get a "common" (your words) pay grade.


The
go-getters are more likely to be promoted into management, (where they will be
free of the union influence.) :-)

It used to be a common joke among union workers, that the best way for a
company to get rid of someone, was to promote them to management ;-).


Management has done the same thing for
decades, with "Associations." A group of steel mills, mining companies,
shipping companies, etc. band together to try to keep wages suppressed.

Actually they just try to stifle competition, in oprder to keep prices
up. Sort of like OPEC.


When
all the employers in an industry make a common wage offer to the employees, is
that "leftism", or just "good business"?

That depends on which side of the table that you're on. I tend to look
at it as "dirty pool". Competition is one of the key pieces of a free
market economy.


Dave

noah wrote:

My previous job (14 years) was management. I was laid off, and took a
temporary job in a construction crew in my field. It has been a long
time since I went home that tired.

Any management or professional jackass that thinks that blue collar
workers "push boxes around", doesn't have a clue.

That's all that many do. While "pushing boxes around", may be overly
simplistic, it does underscore the depth of education and knowlege the
typical worker needs to have. It's the difference between working with
your mind, and working with your body. Since far more people can work
with their body, than can work with their minds, there is a greater
demand (And hence a higher salary paid) for professionals.


Most "professionals" (in my experience) are far removed from the
reality of hard work.

The term "Hard work" is subjective. Why should the degree of "difficulty" only
be defined by physical parameters?


Egotism and stupidity set in, and the "whine"
is heard from coast to coast.

This sounds like an opinion based on a personal bias, rather than an
objecive observation.



I know it's cliche, but every "anti-union whiner" should slip on a
pair of steel-toed mocassins and try to keep up. They couldn't.

And conversely, I would wager that a much higher percentage of blue
collar workers could not even begin to fathom the job of a professional.
Tell me honestly, would it be easier for a brain surgeon to sub on a
construction crew, or the opposite?


It's interesting to me that you don't hear union or labor workers
begrudging the life-style of management or professionals, but the
reverse is not true.

That's funny, when I worked at my one and only union job, I was
constantly exposed to the "Us vs. Them" attitude of the workers as
compared to management. Many of the "rank and file" would make all sort
of groundless comments about what they thought management did to earn
their money, and how they "flaunted" it in front of the workers.


They don't have a clue, and don't want one.
It would upset their lifestyle.

You really need to come to terms with your bitterness. It's clouding
your objectivity.


The next time your toilet doesn't flush, your car won't start,

I'll get out the tools and fix it myself. Such is the advantage of
having a multitude of skills.


Dave

"Bill Cole" wrote in message news:bxEYa.61594$cF.21281@rwcrnsc53...
Why do you think anyone in here cares about your resume or credentials? If
they are true, who cares? If they are not, who cares?

You do! If you didn't, you wouldn't reply to his post!