I hate how the Democratic party's ties to big labor befoul its existence as a party. Hell, if it weren't for big labor, 50% of my problems with democrats would be gone. Not that there are only 2 problems I see with Democrats, just that fully 1/2 of the list, when weighted for importance, centers around this connection.

Chicago - this weekend. Dominick, owned by Chi-based Safeway, foods workers voted 80% to strike. Dominick had offered what one unioneer said was "fair" contract offers. Dominick said it would fold as a Co. if it couldn't work this out. The union responded, assholes that they are, "we have a buyer or two lined up." Well, it's going to fold by the end of this week. Now, workers will be out-of-work for a minimum of months. So, in my view they paid parts of their salaries to a labor union that, in the end, got them in the rear end. Who cares if they didn't get a 20% raise now?

And Dominick is a perfect example of how bloated labor kills a business. They had the nicest groceries in Chicago. I didn't shop there, though. Their labor costs and hot-bar-la-te-da-yuppie-food section drove the prices on regular GROCERIES too high, so I shopped at the cheaper competitor. Now, the labor union will find some sucker to buy up the business so it can again fail for the same reasons?

Anyway, labor unions had their heyday and their time and place. And association with them was about safety as much as anything - plus a fair length to the work day (as an attorney I ROFLMAO at people who think 60 hours is a long work week). But, IMHO, the creation of OSHA obviated the need for labor unions. And, their current existence, a la Dominick, et al, pisses me off.

The political schizophrenia I mentioned is the flip-flopping of the parties. The conventional wisdom I grew up with was that the Rep party was smart money-wise and made the country richer, while the Dem party had the little man in mind and tried to lift up the poor.

What crap. The Reagan/Bush1 years certainly proved that Reps can run a deficit and be as fiscally irresponsible as anyone, and the Clinton years proved that even a trailor-park-trash administration (if we get off on a trailor park tangent again - I swear I'll scream) could make the country money. While the current actions of Dem parties nation-wide to be in bed with big labor, which stands on the broken backs of its members, certainly shows that party no longer has the little man in mind as anything other than a false icon and source of revenue.

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] off.

[ 11-11-2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color="#33cc33">Your skewed opinion of Reagan and his policies aside,
I agree. Unions have outlived their usefullness. I will admit My father used to be union president of a local subdivision of the teamsters for years but he has come around to see that the unions don't really help the people that are its members. The only time a Union really is worth anything is if the worker cant think for them selves or negotiate his or her own contract. As you said state and federal laws have pretty much gaurenteed at least tolerable treatment for the regular hourly worker (non-exempt?) Skilled salaried workers have frequently out performed union workers in salaries and perks, albeit we do seem to end up working more hours. </font>

Unions are only as usefull as the employer lets them be. I dont realy see what a union can to if you tell them to shove it. Ooooohhh, they are going to go on strike!! Last time I checked not showing up to work was grounds for termination. So go ahead and strike, it is easier to replace you if you fire yourself.

<font color="#33cc33">That really only works if the company has a large enough unemployed labor force to hire new employees from, you also have to consider training time. It is no small expense to the company if its labor force strikes. The cost can drive many companies into bankruptcy.</font>

Hunter, I just... don't... think you understand. If there's a collective bargaining agreement, you've got to no other places. More generally, scabs busting through picket lines have created some of the more bloody battles labor unions have ever fought. The mine workers in America fought bitter battles regarding union rights, and though the UMWA's size was ultimately *very* limited due to the successful efforts of the business owners, President T. Roosevelt had to go to great pains to stop the bloodshed.

Besides, what if it's skilled labor and there is nowhere else to get it? The seamstress union buttoned down (punny, no?) the business so tight in the USA that there was no alternative labor force - and the industry simply left the country.

Finally, that sort of thinking causes bodies to turn up afloat in the Chicago River in this town. And I am not kidding.

[edit]

I should really write more on this, but time is short. I will say that I heard a construction contractor discussing it on an airline flight to Miami I was on. He did construction in both places. In Miami, it's very straightforward: hey, I need a carpenter, you know one? In Chicago, if you're not using a union carpenter, the carpenter's union will show up and "interview" you regarding why. Same for the bricklayers union, plumber's union, concrete pourers union, etc. ad nauseum. And, the general contractor very quickly gets the not-so-subtle message that if he's going to stiff them all, he might want to invest in security for his property(ies). I'll add more as I have more time.

[ 11-11-2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I don't see a need for Unions anymore, not in this form.

Perhaps something like an employee rep to talk to management when the chain of command stalls, but unions now are a source of revenue, not what they used to be.

I almost got a job driving for a local dairy company, but it was a union shop. So I skipped it. I didn't see the sense in becoming a teamster when I am perfectly able to represent myself if I have a problem. One thing about drivers... I can still get work anywhere. No matter what the economy is doing.

The days of getting cement shoes aren't over... it just isn't publicized.

<font color="#ff6666">And with advances in quick setting cement they can dispose of the evidence much quicker! ;) </font>

The way you describe miami is the way things realy should be. Thats the way the resaurant industry runs even though there is a food and beverage workers union. If I had a business and got "interviewed" as to why I wasnt hireing union workers someone doing the "interviewing' might get smacked upside the head. If you think about it , unions driving up the prices of workers wages and benifits have caused more industrys to move over seas just to keep running. Maybe a chevy costing $20,000 or $30,000 isnt due to it being a better car, but due to the ridiculous wages the U.A.W. has "negotiated" for even the most barely skilled auto workers.If it wasnt for import taxes most forighn produced cars would cost half of what they already do.

<font color="#ff6666">Import taxes...otherwise known as tarrifs which are aggressively lobbied for by the unions and their PAC's</font>

[ 11-11-2002, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Just like the front-page lobbying of the steel industry for tarriffs. Which is a perfect example of how such protectionist measures fail. Had we enacted no tariffs, the weak steel companies would have folded, allowing the strong ones to pick up the lost business a compete better. As it is, President Bush is just causing the slow death of the American steel industry altogether.

Another interesting notion - why was President Bush so supportive of this? It is the exact same union problems that he complains about where the Homeland Security is at issue (oh, what an *embarrassment* to any sensible democrat that is) that are also propping up the steel industry.