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

Classic furwheeler paranoia. No wonder you came under scrutiny.

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

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."

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

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.

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

You don't seem to contradict my point though.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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".

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Whatever.

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.

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.

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.

Obviously
 

Entire contents of previous post in this subthread:

Re: Obviously
 

Thanks Handle.

Re: Obviously
 

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:

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.

Re: Obviously
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Re: Obviously
 

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

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.

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

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.

Re: Obviously
 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Related, from occasional B'head Massimo Pigliucci:

(Expanded link.)

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

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:

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

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!

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

Clay Bennett's take (via):

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.