2010 Midterm Elections Thread

[srmom]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

When you make claims like "The unions intentionally price the poor out of work" you're the one failing at logic.

You can argue that this is a side effect, but the goal of unions is to ensure that their workers, many of whom are poor themselves, get paid a liveable wage and are treated fairly.

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

LOL. Oh no you didn't just post that.
I knew a guy who worked tool and die for Daimler Chrysler ( back when Daimler owned them) who made something along the lines of $98 an hour when he worked on Sundays. He also told me since no management was at work on Sundays they would just sit around drinking beer and watching TV/football while on the clock.....making $98 an hour. I was still in school at the time and up to my eyeballs in debt so I remember thinking, "F*ck college! I want to learn tool and die!".

[carnation]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

What she said!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

LOL. Oh no you didn't just post that.
I knew a guy who worked tool and die for Daimler Chrysler ( back when Daimler owned them) who made something along the lines of $98 an hour when he worked on Sundays. He also told me since no management was at work on Sundays they would just sit around drinking beer and watching TV/football while on the clock.....making $98 an hour. I was still in school at the time and up to my eyeballs in debt so I remember thinking, "F*ck college! I want to learn tool and die!".

Again, so learn the trade and do it if life is so much better that way.

It's a bit like people who say it's nice to be poor, or easy. So do it then if it's so easy to live the high life off of food stamps. They're not volunteering to be broke for a reason.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.



Again, so learn the trade and do it if life is so much better that way.

It's a bit like people who say it's nice to be poor, or easy. So do it then if it's so easy to live the high life off of food stamps. They're not volunteering to be broke for a reason.

I think some people "volunteer to be broke" and make less money due to their chosen career field but feel passionate about what they do and accept it, even if it isn't right. I'm thinking of those who are legal aid attorneys, social workers, teachers in schools with great kids but no money or parental support, and so on. Some of the smartest and best attorneys I know have beliefs for equal access int he justice system and work for Legal Aid or as public defenders and their debt is crippling and they are really really broke but the feelings of self worth from their work helps, and they have jobs unlike a lot of young lawyers who thought they could go BigLaw from a T3 school.

I've been really lucky that I found the job I did while in school and was able to save money for these times that are much leaner, but being single has helped that. I can't remember my last raise, my health insurance is FUBAR starting January 1, but things could be a lot worse and I'm trying to be positive that it will get better and I'm going to leave Idaho in the next couple of years and it won't be my problem anymore. I also asked a roommate from college who is from Sweden if she could find me a husband so I can move there and enjoy some social democracy, but I'm not holding my breath

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I think some people "volunteer to be broke" and make less money due to their chosen career field but feel passionate about what they do and accept it, even if it isn't right. I'm thinking of those who are legal aid attorneys, social workers, teachers in schools with great kids but no money or parental support, and so on. Some of the smartest and best attorneys I know have beliefs for equal access int he justice system and work for Legal Aid or as public defenders and their debt is crippling and they are really really broke but the feelings of self worth from their work helps, and they have jobs unlike a lot of young lawyers who thought they could go BigLaw from a T3 school.

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.

I've been really lucky that I found the job I did while in school and was able to save money for these times that are much leaner, but being single has helped that. I can't remember my last raise, my health insurance is FUBAR starting January 1, but things could be a lot worse and I'm trying to be positive that it will get better and I'm going to leave Idaho in the next couple of years and it won't be my problem anymore. I also asked a roommate from college who is from Sweden if she could find me a husband so I can move there and enjoy some social democracy, but I'm not holding my breath

Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You missed the point of my post entirely.

And there's nothing stopping you from learning a trade and earning union wages if that is what you desire.

Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.

It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:

-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.

If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.

Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Pretty sure this means you missed their point entirely, too.

It's impossible for both of these statements to be true:

-Unions protect workers by guaranteeing a livable wage.
-Union labor is prohibitively expensive.

If the latter is true, then workers are not "protected" - on the whole, a few benefit while most take the dickpunch. Examples of exorbitant union labor rates directly contradict the notion that unions are "important" for "protecting the little guy" - at least, on a global level.

Obviously the issue is much more gray than those black-and-white statements, but we're not into those gray areas yet.

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This is true, but they're not doing it because living off public aid is so awesome and you can buy Cadillacs and Air Jordans on food stamps. Different than what I'm talking about. I'm addressing people who think that life being poor is so totally easysauce.


Ha! Is gay marriage legal in Sweden? Tell her I'd take a husband or a wife >.>

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, my point was directed to EW who was stating that unions' purposes were X when in reality X was a side effect and their purpose was Y. It was a poor argument and one that is not conducive to claiming a logical discussion.

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.
Or, for the sake of logical grounds, the important part is that it can work in his best interest. And then it's up to data to determine if it does. Anecdotes about 98 dollars an hour and drinking beer are as useful as "welfare queens" buying lobsters and driving brand new SUVs.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

It has been legal for quite sometime, under different terminology, but it is now called marriage and not civil union, domestic partnership, or a registered partnership, and marriage has been made gender neutral. Even the Church of Sweden supported the change, though they are no longer the official government sanctioned church, and there has been an increase in more Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal congregations in Scandinavia who oppose a lot of the moves toward equality. Gay couples can adopt kids no problem, serve in the military which is no longer mandatory for men, medical procedures for those who are transgendered and lesbians who want to be inseminated are covered by the government, men who have had sex with men (and women who have been with men who have been with men) can donate blood with some conditions, and I'm really happy there is a progressive place like this.

The blood donation rule is probably among the most ridiculous things that we have in place here.

Though I know it was a move to prevent unionizing my former place of employment, our benefits were amazing. Even before the spectre of a union came in we were allowed full benefits for 80 hours in a month at the same cost as full time employees, bereavement pay, jury duty pay covered the same as an hourly wage, extra pay for working Sunday, a full 8 hour of personal time as an anniversary of hire date and our birthday (even if you were part time) and if one exhausted their medical leave for an illness or surgery of their own or covered by FMLA relationships there was not just a bank people could donate to, but also pay would be arranged when everything was exhausted. I miss paying $3.28 a week for full medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, and extra things like Aflac, where my deductible was maybe $25 dollars but may have increased to still be under $100. We also had 401K, stock options, money for college if related to your job, and real paths to moving up that came from internal hires.

I miss that company so much I would still work there part time just for the benefits, sadly I live about 100 miles away from the nearest location.

Sounds like a place that is worth while. I'm still figuring out the new job and how the benefits work. I get real health insurance in Dec.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Now as for your point, not necessarily. Unions protect their workers and ensure that their workers get hired even at high wages. You may disagree with the goal or the results, but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As long as they're actually getting hired and 'the little guy' can join the union then it does work in 'the little guy's' best interest.

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This basically assumes an infinite number of jobs (or so large that union membership can easily expand indefinitely), right?

That's the exact reason I used "unions" in general and in a global sense, and not any one specific union (or any specific subset of workers). Unions attempt to (and often do) serve their own membership admirably, but that's the whole point: they likely have a negative effect on the whole to benefit the few.

So, in a holistic/global sense, the statements are indeed mutually exclusive.

It doesn't assume an infinite number, but it does kind of assume that the union could expand to provide all jobs in that sector, or provide the influence to raise wages and benefits for non-union members in the same sector. I don't believe that assumption is actually necessary though. An alternative assumption is that without the high union wage more people would have jobs rather than the same number of people having jobs at a lower wage. But that too is simply an assumption.

As long as it is possible for the two statements to co-exist there's not a logical problem with the argument, it just comes down to the data to back up the assertion. I don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to the answer, just the argument.

And srmom did miss the point of my post entirely which was that you can't claim to only care about the logic while making large logical errors. Or rather, you can, but you're being ridiculous. (As is using unionization in apartheid South Africa as an honest reflection of unionization in the US, that just doesn't work.)

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://www.buildingc3.com/doc.asp?id=2836

When the union wage for a painter is $32.15, and the union wage for a roofer is $31.30. Is it any wonder that people are paying illegal workers for this type of work, thus taking away employment for "poor" Americans?

Considering that these hourly union wages compute out to around $65,000 a year, I'd call that way above a "liveable wage".

I work full time for an oil company, doing logistics and planning, and my salary doesn't come close to that. Maybe I should have skipped college and just picked up a paintbrush...

A "liveable" wage varies greatly by geographic region. In NYC or Southern California, $65K a year would put you on a pretty tight budget. If you're paying $20K a year in day care, it would also make your budget pretty tight.
Roofing is a really dangerous job and most roofers end up injuring themselves pretty badly or getting asbestosis or silicosis from inhaling all the crap they inhale. Tar burns are pretty awful too. Many jobs are paid better because they are hazardous.

I do admit that the UAW got ridiculously greedy and strayed from its original purpose. UAW leaders are as out of touch as high level executives are. However, there are many unions that have not been that way, which is why I mentioned grocery store employees and teachers.

During a management meeting in my corporation this week, after they announced both our raises and our benefit cost increases, one of the managers pointed out that the raises are less than the new cost of the benefits and the executive leadership said "Well, that's only true for the employees making less than $60,000 a year", as if that was a small number of people. In reality, that's about 85% of the employees. "Only the employees making less than $60,000 a year"... ONLY.. as in "only for the employees who are already struggling to make ends meet".

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I do admit that the UAW got ridiculously greedy and strayed from its original purpose. UAW leaders are as out of touch as high level executives are.

THIS.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

THIS.

I do agree on that point and I'm actually not as liberal fiscally as I sound in this thread. I'm not a "give everybody welfare" person.. I believe in a workfare type of system. I believe that affordable day care needs to be available. I understand that sometimes things happen to people who are very educated and previously made very good money that devastates them financially, be it a medical problem that prevents them from working or a layoff in a depressed economy. The number of factors that led to last year's bankruptcies for Chrysler and GM is huge. It became "the perfect storm" for the auto industry and there is no one person to blame.