Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6517)

handle 02-23-2011 05:53 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Not4Navigation (Post 198817)
Now, I have done some searching based on these attributions and see that the list contains a bunch of users marked "Banned". I also see the same names (like yours, handle) surrounding them. Hyenas? The ones I have found all seem to hang "right" or at least a little right of center like myself. Is that the norm here? or are there left-leaning posters who have been banned?? There certainly are a couple that I would remove from this arena for one reason or another.

With that said, no not Lmaki, Nanook, or Kidneystones either. I do wish you would not conjure up all your personal eidolons from the past and have them floating through your mind as you read my posts, however. They seem to affect your ability to engage with anything significant. If however, you are unable to engage with anything significant, feel free to allow me to continue to intimidate you with the reputation of others. I don't have a real pack here to run interference for me.

Classic furwheeler paranoia. No wonder you came under scrutiny.

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 12:04 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 198855)
Classic furwheeler paranoia. No wonder you came under scrutiny.

A paranoia informed by an awareness of this board's history over the past several years, one observes. Which is rather remarkable coming from someone who has, ostensibly, only been around since 10 Nov 2010.

Interesting how he also knew, right away, how to set his account to "Invisible Mode."

handle 02-26-2011 01:52 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198724)
The best way to get a raise or being treated better is to go to your employer with a job-offer from someone else. If you're unionized, your employer can't do anything about that. That's why the higher ups don't want unions for themselves.

This is total bollocks. You are just making stuff up, right? They could offer you a non-classified (non-union) position, which might be great, or a huge mistake. I've seen several people get promoted for a few months, and then get thrown out on their asses. I've also seen people just get great new management positions. Good for them. Ya gotta be careful though, because you are giving up your representation, and are no longer under contract.

Unit 02-26-2011 09:45 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199159)
This is total bollocks. You are just making stuff up, right? They could offer you a non-classified (non-union) position, which might be great, or a huge mistake. I've seen several people get promoted for a few months, and then get thrown out on their asses. I've also seen people just get great new management positions. Good for them. Ya gotta be careful though, because you are giving up your representation, and are no longer under contract.

You don't seem to contradict my point though.

handle 02-27-2011 05:26 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199214)
You don't seem to contradict my point though.

You said there was nothing the higher ups could do to keep you if you got a better offer. I gave one example of something they could do. But now you have made an error, you got me to think about this further, and not only can they recommend you for a non-union position, but they can grant you a step raise, re-classify your position at a higher pay rate, or simply promote you to a higher classified position. And it's up to the non-union managers to do it!
If that doesn't contradict your point, then I'm pretty sure you don't have one, or maybe it doesn't read the way you think it does?

Unit 02-27-2011 05:56 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199260)
You said there was nothing the higher ups could do to keep you if you got a better offer. I gave one example of something they could do. But now you have made an error, you got me to think about this further, and not only can they recommend you for a non-union position, but they can grant you a step raise, re-classify your position at a higher pay rate, or simply promote you to a higher classified position. And it's up to the non-union managers to do it!
If that doesn't contradict your point, then I'm pretty sure you don't have one, or maybe it doesn't read the way you think it does?

Maybe if you took a specific example, say a teacher who's doing an exceptional job, putting in lot of effort etc...if she was a professor she might get an outside offer, people would recognize the value and try to attract her away, she could go to her higher-ups with the offer and ask for a raise. On the other hand, if she's unionized, then her boss's hands are tied. I'm not talking about changing careers, sure the principal could give her an administrative position outside the system, but I'm talking about getting paid more for doing what you're already doing.

Ocean 02-27-2011 06:22 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199262)
Maybe if you took a specific example, say a teacher who's doing an exceptional job, putting in lot of effort etc...if she was a professor she might get an outside offer, people would recognize the value and try to attract her away, she could go to her higher-ups with the offer and ask for a raise. On the other hand, if she's unionized, then her boss's hands are tied. I'm not talking about changing careers, sure the principal could give her an administrative position outside the system, but I'm talking about getting paid more for doing what you're already doing.

The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) is a union. At a given institution, each faculty level has a salary range. However, there are provisions for the kind of situations that you present. If a faculty member is given an offer in good faith, the salary can be adjusted to match. I don't know whether there are similar provisions in other unions.

handle 02-27-2011 06:41 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199262)
Maybe if you took a specific example, say a teacher who's doing an exceptional job, putting in lot of effort etc...if she was a professor she might get an outside offer, people would recognize the value and try to attract her away, she could go to her higher-ups with the offer and ask for a raise. On the other hand, if she's unionized, then her boss's hands are tied. I'm not talking about changing careers, sure the principal could give her an administrative position outside the system, but I'm talking about getting paid more for doing what you're already doing.


I see, you were referring to teachers, without actually referring to them. I'm sure if you just explain this to them, they will ignore the possibility that they could get fired for doing an exceptional job, putting in a lot of effort etc, and not pleasing the boss in some other way, without any recourse or representation.
I bet if you just posit the advantages of doing away with the Union, and giving management absolute power over them, they will do just that. I'm sure most of them (if they "work hard") will get raises, and the managers would be happy to have the funds taken out of their own compensation packages.
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign?

Unit 02-27-2011 07:55 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 199263)
The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) is a union. At a given institution, each faculty level has a salary range. However, there are provisions for the kind of situations that you present. If a faculty member is given an offer in good faith, the salary can be adjusted to match. I don't know whether there are similar provisions in other unions.

Sure the AAUP is a union, but few professors are members, and the bargaining over salary rarely involves the AAUP.

Typically other unions are very strict about what one of their members can ask. I once hired a carpenter for work around the house that he did part time outside his regular job, and I could not pay him the market rate/hour but a much lower "union rate".

Unit 02-27-2011 07:58 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199265)
I see, you were referring to teachers, without actually referring to them. I'm sure if you just explain this to them, they will ignore the possibility that they could get fired for doing an exceptional job, putting in a lot of effort etc, and not pleasing the boss in some other way, without any recourse or representation.
I bet if you just posit the advantages of doing away with the Union, and giving management absolute power over them, they will do just that. I'm sure most of them (if they "work hard") will get raises, and the managers would be happy to have the funds taken out of their own compensation packages.
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign?

No I think my example applies more generally. Keep in mind that only 7% of the work-force is unionized, and obviously wages don't drop down to zero. Why? The main explanation that economists provide is that employers compete for the best workers and bid their wages up. In other words, the reason why wages don't drop to zero is because workers have alternatives and their skills are valuable.

handle 02-27-2011 10:31 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199273)
No I think my example applies more generally. Keep in mind that only 7% of the work-force is unionized, and obviously wages don't drop down to zero. Why? The main explanation that economists provide is that employers compete for the best workers and bid their wages up. In other words, the reason why wages don't drop to zero is because workers have alternatives and their skills are valuable.

No, I think it does not, and wages don't drop to zero, because of the minimum wage laws that would not exist without the unions who fought to get them passed.

handle 02-27-2011 10:40 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199272)
Sure the AAUP is a union, but few professors are members, and the bargaining over salary rarely involves the AAUP.

Most all of the professors in my state belong to the AAUP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199272)
Typically other unions are very strict about what one of their members can ask. I once hired a carpenter for work around the house that he did part time outside his regular job, and I could not pay him the market rate/hour but a much lower "union rate".

This must be true because it sounds so totally unbelievable. I love all the "anecdotal" evidence that gets presented here. Like "my ex wife is a teacher". Really compelling stuff.

Unit 02-28-2011 12:56 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199278)
Most all of the professors in my state belong to the AAUP.

What state is that? Talking about anecdotal evidence....

Quote:

This must be true because it sounds so totally unbelievable. I love all the "anecdotal" evidence that gets presented here. Like "my ex wife is a teacher". Really compelling stuff.

Unit 02-28-2011 12:58 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199276)
No, I think it does not, and wages don't drop to zero, because of the minimum wage laws that would not exist without the unions who fought to get them passed.

Except that only 2% of the work-force is on minimum wage, and most of those are people from well-off households (think young college students from well-off families).

handle 02-28-2011 01:21 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199282)
What state is that? Talking about anecdotal evidence....

Nice try, but are aware that AAUP stands for the American Association of University Professors, right? And in Oregon they represent the state's higher education faculties. How's that for an anecdote? The real funny part of it is when you wrote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199272)
Sure the AAUP is a union, but few professors are members, and the bargaining over salary rarely involves the AAUP.

Yes, they bargain for salaries.
As for the minimum wage, you defended your point by completely changing it.. nice try.

Unit 02-28-2011 10:30 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199285)
Nice try, but are aware that AAUP stands for the American Association of University Professors, right? And in Oregon they represent the state's higher education faculties. How's that for an anecdote? The real funny part of it is when you wrote:
Yes, they bargain for salaries.
As for the minimum wage, you defended your point by completely changing it.. nice try.

I didn't change anything: even illegal immigrants are not paid zero. Your minimum wage point is a red-herring. Why don't wages of non-unionized private-sector workers which is a large majority of workers do not fall to the minimum wage level? I'm not changing anything: my point stands, because of competition between employers looking for the best workers. It's a basic point.

About the AAUP, I know very well who they are and what they do. Please provide a link to the data about Oregon faculty (I'm curious now). For most of the states I've visited the AAUP was at best irrelevant. I've never ever heard of them bargaining for salaries, they mostly address academic freedom issues and controversial tenure cases.

handle 02-28-2011 06:37 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199293)
I didn't change anything: even illegal immigrants are not paid zero. Your minimum wage point is a red-herring. Why don't wages of non-unionized private-sector workers which is a large majority of workers do not fall to the minimum wage level? I'm not changing anything: my point stands, because of competition between employers looking for the best workers. It's a basic point.

About the AAUP, I know very well who they are and what they do. Please provide a link to the data about Oregon faculty (I'm curious now). For most of the states I've visited the AAUP was at best irrelevant. I've never ever heard of them bargaining for salaries, they mostly address academic freedom issues and controversial tenure cases.

Minimum wage is an artificial zero, because in many cases and areas, it doesn't cover the cost of living, especially living without heath coverage. You need to provide links to the statistics that support your assertion about who is on minimum wage, as well as your original point which was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 198724)
The best way to get a raise or being treated better is to go to your employer with a job-offer from someone else. If you're unionized, your employer can't do anything about that. That's why the higher ups don't want unions for themselves.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the "wages don't fall to zero" argument seems pretty divorced from the real world. Wages have fallen to actual zero for a lot of people and you seem to want to argue academically that they are getting what they are worth. Even if it can be proven by your logic, it will be a hard sell to anyone who wants to live in a non-hostile environment or a healthy economy.

You also made this point, so you support it with links;
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199272)
Sure the AAUP is a union, but few professors are members, and the bargaining over salary rarely involves the AAUP.

You seem to be going awfully far out your way to bury the fact that your original assertion has already been shot full of holes, so just keep posting more stuff and it will go away.
The problem with your approach here is if you win, we all lose. History shows this, and most people get that. But there's always a buck to be made by rationalizing the needs of the few in power, right?

Anyway, nice job regurgitating right-wing think-tank talking points. I think you have a future in it.. Good luck

Unit 02-28-2011 07:05 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199351)
Minimum wage is an artificial zero, because in many cases and areas, it doesn't cover the cost of living, especially living without heath coverage. You need to provide links to the statistics that support your assertion about who is on minimum wage, as well as your original point which was:



I can't speak for anyone else, but the "wages don't fall to zero" argument seems pretty divorced from the real world. Wages have fallen to actual zero for a lot of people and you seem to want to argue academically that they are getting what they are worth. Even if it can be proven by your logic, it will be a hard sell to anyone who wants to live in a non-hostile environment or a healthy economy.

You also made this point, so you support it with links;


You seem to be going awfully far out your way to bury the fact that your original assertion has already been shot full of holes, so just keep posting more stuff and it will go away.
The problem with your approach here is if you win, we all lose. History shows this, and most people get that. But there's always a buck to be made by rationalizing the needs of the few in power, right?

Anyway, nice job regurgitating right-wing think-tank talking points. I think you have a future in it.. Good luck

Whatever.

operative 02-28-2011 08:42 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Bill apparently subscribes to the absurd conspiracy theory that Tabitha actually magically jumped down when the union thug wielded his sign, without him realizing it. Utterly absurd, give me a break. The union thug pushed her. Stop spreading conspiracy theories, Bill, it's beneath you.

bjkeefe 02-28-2011 08:47 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
The operative apparently subscribes to the absurd conspiracy theory that Koch operative Tabitha Hale was "pushed." Utterly absurd, give me a break. The truth is, her iPhone was knocked out of her hand, by a paper sign.

Links to the video showing this, as posted on YouTube by FreedomWorks, here.

Unit 03-01-2011 01:45 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Obviously Handle is not interested in having a discussion, but for people who might be interested in some of the claims I've made so far, here are a few links:


Extending the work of Card and Krueger, we find minimum-wage increases (1988–2003) did not affect poverty rates overall, or among the working poor or among single mothers. Despite employment growth among single mothers, most gainers lived in nonpoor families and most working poor already had wages above the proposed minimums. Simulating a new federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, we find 87% of workers who benefit live in nonpoor families. Poor single mothers receive 3.8% of all benefits. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would far more effectively reduce poverty, especially for single mothers.

and

Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.

bjkeefe 03-01-2011 02:09 AM

Obviously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199395)
Obviously Handle is not interested in having a discussion ...

Entire contents of previous post in this subthread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199357)
Whatever.


Unit 03-01-2011 10:30 AM

Re: Obviously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 199397)
Entire contents of previous post in this subthread:

Thanks Handle.

handle 03-02-2011 02:44 PM

Re: Obviously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199408)
Thanks Handle.

You are welcome, and I thank Mr. Keefe, for stepping in and proving you were a "last poster" even when you've been debunked, and reduced to "whatever". I also invite "people who might be interested" to scan your afterthought links for anything that supports your stale ditto head talking points. For instance:

This:
Extending the work of Card and Krueger, we find minimum-wage increases (1988–2003) did not affect poverty rates overall, or among the working poor or among single mothers. Despite employment growth among single mothers, most gainers lived in nonpoor families and most working poor already had wages above the proposed minimums. Simulating a new federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, we find 87% of workers who benefit live in nonpoor families. Poor single mothers receive 3.8% of all benefits. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would far more effectively reduce poverty, especially for single mothers.

Does not support this ancient boiler-plate Rushism:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199283)
Except that only 2% of the work-force is on minimum wage, and most of those are people from well-off households (think young college students from well-off families).

I know it will make you feel like a winner if you get the last post, so I now yield the floor for your predicable "yes it does too".
Be advised however, your consistent pretense of having supported your outrageous "claims" does not a "discussion" make. This could be more aptly described a farce, IMHO.

stephanie 03-02-2011 03:27 PM

Re: Obviously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199506)
Extending the work of Card and Krueger, we find minimum-wage increases (1988–2003) did not affect poverty rates overall, or among the working poor or among single mothers.

Given that during that period the increases have generally been to keep up with (or somewhat catch up with prior losses due to) inflation, not to change the status quo, one wouldn't expect them to. Here's a chart that shows the adjusted amount of the minimum wage over time.

Quote:

Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would far more effectively reduce poverty, especially for single mothers.
I'm in favor. Presumably we also need to find a way to pay for it, although I don't see that as difficult. Not really free market solution, of course, but I don't see that as a negative.

stephanie 03-02-2011 03:36 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199273)
No I think my example applies more generally. Keep in mind that only 7% of the work-force is unionized, and obviously wages don't drop down to zero.

Of course they don't. No one is arguing that without unions wages drop to zero. Obviously, people won't (usually, HuffPo aside) work for nothing, and workers are necessary, so people have some leverage, varying depending on the market.

That this is all true doesn't, at all, address the issue of whether they have more leverage with unions or if total compensation tends to be better in many jobs with unions than without them. Historically, employers have thought so enough to spend lots of money fighting them.

Unit 03-02-2011 07:25 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 199511)
Of course they don't. No one is arguing that without unions wages drop to zero. Obviously, people won't (usually, HuffPo aside) work for nothing, and workers are necessary, so people have some leverage, varying depending on the market.

That this is all true doesn't, at all, address the issue of whether they have more leverage with unions or if total compensation tends to be better in many jobs with unions than without them. Historically, employers have thought so enough to spend lots of money fighting them.

Well, if you've followed the thread I did provide what I think is one way workers have more leverage when they can bargain individually (see my response to Don Zeko above). Maybe you're not arguing that wages don't drop without unions, but Handle sure did (although I don't understand everything he says).

Historically, employers have also joined forces with unions to go lobby the govt for more favors.

Unit 03-02-2011 07:30 PM

Re: Obviously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 199510)
Given that during that period the increases have generally been to keep up with (or somewhat catch up with prior losses due to) inflation, not to change the status quo, one wouldn't expect them to. Here's a chart that shows the adjusted amount of the minimum wage over time.

Inflation is generally overstated though, because it's very hard to account for quality improvements, new products and services etc...

Quote:

I'm in favor. Presumably we also need to find a way to pay for it, although I don't see that as difficult. Not really free market solution, of course, but I don't see that as a negative.
Exellent, but why is it not a free-market solution? To my mind any policy that avoids distorting prices is a policy that has some free-market to it.

stephanie 03-02-2011 07:49 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199535)
Maybe you're not arguing that wages don't drop without unions

I'm having trouble parsing this.

In any case, I'm pointing out that the fact wages don't equal zero in the absence of unions is not evidence that unions lack an upward pressure on wages. Moreover, I do think that unions usually lead to higher compensation and/or better working conditions, and that's inherent in the current arguments against public unions (as well as the historical actions of private employers). It's certainly possible that an individual worker in a union will make less than he or she would make in the absence of the union, but if that's an issue then non-unionized options are likely available, and presumably there are trade-offs that cause the person to pick one job vs. another.

stephanie 03-02-2011 07:52 PM

Re: Obviously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199536)
Inflation is generally overstated though

Even if that were true, I don't believe it affects my point here.

Quote:

Exellent, but why is it not a free-market solution?
Government hand out! Seriously, if you are reasonable enough not to have some moral opposition to the EITC just because it involves redistribution, I'll take it and not argue.

Unit 03-02-2011 08:13 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 199539)
I'm having trouble parsing this.

In any case, I'm pointing out that the fact wages don't equal zero in the absence of unions is not evidence that unions lack an upward pressure on wages. Moreover, I do think that unions usually lead to higher compensation and/or better working conditions, and that's inherent in the current arguments against public unions (as well as the historical actions of private employers). It's certainly possible that an individual worker in a union will make less than he or she would make in the absence of the union, but if that's an issue then non-unionized options are likely available, and presumably there are trade-offs that cause the person to pick one job vs. another.

My all point initially was that unionization does not lead to higher compensation and/or better working conditions. Although, I can see that "better compensation" might occur in some cases when unions ally with the bosses to get govt favors.

handle 03-03-2011 01:29 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199542)
My all point initially was that unionization does not lead to higher compensation and/or better working conditions.

To me, this statement, is analogous to saying:
Women are not better off as a result of the women's movement.

bjkeefe 03-03-2011 01:33 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199574)
To me, this statement, is analogous to saying:
Women are not better off as a result of the women's movement.

Related, from occasional B'head Massimo Pigliucci:

Quote:

Why the decline of unions is largely responsible for the obscenely widening income gap. http://goo.gl/dtnin
(Expanded link.)

handle 03-03-2011 02:40 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 199575)
Related, from occasional B'head Massimo Pigliucci:
(Expanded link.)

Great piece, sheds a clear light on the "big bad unions" myth.

Here's a NYT op-ed that actually has Unit's talking point in the intro:

Quote:

IN the raging battle over union rights in Wisconsin, those seeking to curtail collective bargaining for state employees have advanced an argument that seems hard to resist: It will make it easier to reward those workers who perform the best. What could be fairer than that?

If only that were true. As anybody who has ever worked in any institution — private or public — knows, one of the primary ways employee effectiveness is judged is the performance review. And nothing could be less fair than that.

In my years studying such reviews, I’ve learned that they are subjective evaluations that measure how “comfortable” a boss is with an employee, not how much an employee contributes to overall results. They are an intimidating tool that makes employees too scared to speak their minds, lest their criticism come back to haunt them in their annual evaluations. They almost guarantee that the owners — whether they be taxpayers or shareholders — will get less bang for their buck.

Ocean 03-03-2011 08:49 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 199578)
Great piece, sheds a clear light on the "big bad unions" myth.

Here's a NYT op-ed that actually has Unit's talking point in the intro:

I haven't been following this thread very closely. The main reason is that after reading a sample of comments from the reactionaries in our commenters' group I decided that I don't have enough time to try to counter their tantrum-originated rants or their ignorant arguments. Unit, operative and other alikes' comments show the most basic ignorance about the history of labor unions, their origins and the employer/employee relationship that preceded them. And when I say ignorance, I mean lack of understanding of the meaning and implications of that history.

I would welcome a serious discussion of union's shortcomings and how to reform them to make them more effective. But the insistence on eliminating unions, creating the delusional idea that without collective bargaining, workers would be better off shows such a degree of irrationality, ignorance or bad faith, that it goes beyond what can possibly be addressed with limited time.

Additionally, I'm truly sick of seeing people here defending those who are in a position of power and constantly trashing those who are being screwed up and pushed even farther into poverty and powerlessness. These arguments can only come from those who are in those positions of power, of idiots who are being paid to betray their own, or are self-deluded into identifying with those who are (or will be) screwing them up sooner or later.

There was a time when at least, there was a cover of decency. Not even that now. Greedy, entitled, and shameless. Yuck!

bjkeefe 03-03-2011 09:34 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 199583)
I haven't been following this thread very closely. The main reason is that after reading a sample of comments from the reactionaries in our commenters' group I decided that I don't have enough time to try to counter their tantrum-originated rants or their ignorant arguments. Unit, operative and other alikes' comments show the most basic ignorance about the history of labor unions, their origins and the employer/employee relationship that preceded them. And when I say ignorance, I mean lack of understanding of the meaning and implications of that history.

I would welcome a serious discussion of union's shortcomings and how to reform them to make them more effective. But the insistence on eliminating unions, creating the delusional idea that without collective bargaining, workers would be better off shows such a degree of irrationality, ignorance or bad faith, that it goes beyond what can possibly be addressed with limited time.

Additionally, I'm truly sick of seeing people here defending those who are in a position of power and constantly trashing those who are being screwed up and pushed even farther into poverty and powerlessness. These arguments can only come from those who are in those positions of power, of idiots who are being paid to betray their own, or are self-deluded into identifying with those who are (or will be) screwing them up sooner or later.

There was a time when at least, there was a cover of decency. Not even that now. Greedy, entitled, and shameless. Yuck!

Clay Bennett's take (via):

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8...0110226low.jpg

stephanie 03-03-2011 10:40 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 199542)
My all point initially was that unionization does not lead to higher compensation and/or better working conditions.

And your argument for that position was that wages aren't zero in the absence of unions, which fails to support your position. Moreover, like I said, the actions and rhetoric of union opponents are contrary to your position (as is logic -- groups of people have more bargaining power then individuals), so you need something more than mere speculation.

stephanie 03-03-2011 10:50 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 199583)
I would welcome a serious discussion of union's shortcomings and how to reform them to make them more effective. But the insistence on eliminating unions, creating the delusional idea that without collective bargaining, workers would be better off shows such a degree of irrationality, ignorance or bad faith, that it goes beyond what can possibly be addressed with limited time.

Good post.

From my perspective, there are lots of things unions bargain for that aren't in the best interest of the public generally (there are lots of things my co-workers bargain for that I don't think are in the best interest of my company or the public generally, and sometimes they win and sometimes they don't). I'm all for opposing union demands at times and for pushing for reforms in various areas and, certainly, for opposing demands they make about their field of interest (just as I think we can oppose things the Chamber of Commerce, the AMA, the ABA, etc. all want). But to go beyond that into a "unions are bad and must be destroyed" position seems to me irrational. Or, in many cases, simply about wanting to make the bargaining position of others easier and to reduce the power that workers have.

Given trends in this economy, that latter seems both unnecessary and a bad idea.

I don't pretend to be the best placed person to defend unions -- my traditional interests don't line up with the union block as much as many and in theory the realignment of the Dems made the party more full of people like me and less full of traditional union members. But the changes over the last several years illustrate, even to people like me, that this is not the situation for our country to be in, and we need a stronger working class. I'm hoping this will help some of those who should be voicing these positions step up or realize what the fights are about.

Unit 03-03-2011 10:55 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 199589)
And your argument for that position was that wages aren't zero in the absence of unions, which fails to support your position. Moreover, like I said, the actions and rhetoric of union opponents are contrary to your position (as is logic -- groups of people have more bargaining power then individuals), so you need something more than mere speculation.

No. My argument was that employers compete for the best workers so what keeps wages up is the ability of individual workers to get better offers and have the option to switch employers. This is what I suggested explains the fact that wages don't plummet in the absence of unions.

Unit 03-03-2011 11:00 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Selling Pain (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 199583)
I haven't been following this thread very closely. The main reason is that after reading a sample of comments from the reactionaries in our commenters' group I decided that I don't have enough time to try to counter their tantrum-originated rants or their ignorant arguments. Unit, operative and other alikes' comments show the most basic ignorance about the history of labor unions, their origins and the employer/employee relationship that preceded them. And when I say ignorance, I mean lack of understanding of the meaning and implications of that history.

I would welcome a serious discussion of union's shortcomings and how to reform them to make them more effective. But the insistence on eliminating unions, creating the delusional idea that without collective bargaining, workers would be better off shows such a degree of irrationality, ignorance or bad faith, that it goes beyond what can possibly be addressed with limited time.

Additionally, I'm truly sick of seeing people here defending those who are in a position of power and constantly trashing those who are being screwed up and pushed even farther into poverty and powerlessness. These arguments can only come from those who are in those positions of power, of idiots who are being paid to betray their own, or are self-deluded into identifying with those who are (or will be) screwing them up sooner or later.

There was a time when at least, there was a cover of decency. Not even that now. Greedy, entitled, and shameless. Yuck!

Why do you assume I'm in favor of eliminating or destroying unions? You can't accuse without providing links. I don't know what Operative says and don't like this kind of generic slandering "Unit and others alike etc...." What is that supposed to mean?

By the way, the history of unions has its fair share of racism in it. I wonder how much you know about that.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.