Senate The U.S. Politics thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    You are misunderstanding the point. Consider.

    The question under consideration is how the employer puts together this initial offer. If he already has 100 employees that make $10/hour, the initial offer for new employees will probably close to $10/hour why? Because who would do the job for $5/hour when so many other people already get twice that much? And how much effort can the company really put into saying no, when they already do it for 100 other people? Even if new hires don't get a full $10 rate, they'd be much closer to that than $5. In this way, the terms of new contracts are influenced by the contracts that already exist. Because unions are responsible for so many of the employees at any given workplace (provided that workplace has a legally recognized union), they constitute a significant number of the previously existing contracts. Consequently, they exert a sizable influence on the terms given to new hires regardless of whether those new hires join as part of the union or not. This happens not because of some special property of unions, but simply because humans compare amongst themselves, and there are so many union workers that the union terms become a major point of comparison.
  2. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The initial offer doesn't come out of the blue, it isn't totaly new from last time. You just adjust what you already have, and you look at other organizations in the same field of work. You only need to come up with an initial offer out of thin air if (1) you're among the first in a new industry, or (2) your industry has been completely transformed within a very short period of time. Standards and initial offers don't require unions. And if the union's contract becomes the standard at which to compare, then it must be because the union is large, and in a right-to-work state that will mean that it's because the union is popular. Which, if anything, should strengthen the union's position. And if it turns out the union is highly unpopular, then it will have hardly any members, and individuals outside the union won't be comparing their contracts to the insignificant union contract.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012
  3. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Reread my posts. I have never said that either standards or initial offers "require" unions. I said that, given a union exists, it will strongly influence the standard offers made at a given company. You'll note that in order to be legally recognized, at least 30% of a workplace must express a desire to join the union. A contract that is the same for a third of all employees cannot help but be a point of comparison for the company. Because 30% is sizable minority, and almost certainly a higher proportion than any other salary/benefit package a given company offers.
  4. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    And if the union's contract becomes the standard at which to compare, then it must be because the union is large, and in a right-to-work state that will mean that it's because the union is popular. Which, if anything, should strengthen the union's position. And if it turns out the union is highly unpopular, then it will have hardly any members, and individuals outside the union won't be comparing their contracts to the insignificant union contract.

    So I just need to modify that to say that if it turns out the union is so unpopular that 30% of employees don't stay in the union in a right-to-work state, then the union becomes entirely insignificant by ceasing to exist. That doesn't change my underlying point.

    And if it's only 30% or so, with it existing as a reference point but not an overwhelming majority, then the employer could just create a second tier of the baseline salary/benefits package for the same job title, and negotiate with the individual from there. Or even keep it universal, but just make the starting position low, and then the union would probably still have the upper-hand in negotiating a better package. It will just be a balancing act between the employers, employees, and the unions.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012
  5. mrsvos Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2005
    star 5
    Poop...lol,,,I logged into the senate by accident. Poop
  6. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    That's not how negotiating works. Even if there was a "second tier" baseline, the fact that the employer has already made a certain package of concessions available to at least 30% of the people who do the same job makes it more likely he will grant something the same or similar to a new employee during negotiations.

    Think about this in terms of the fiscal cliff. In last year's debate, Republicans could credibly say they wouldn't do a deal that involved tax increases. Why? Because no Republican had voted for tax increases. This year, they can't use that as a red line in their negotiations, because of the mere existence of options they will accept where taxes go up (including going over the cliff). You can't say "I'll never agree to X" if it's something you've already agreed to. Let alone something you agree to a full third of the time that particular situation comes up.
  7. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Well, until J-w comes back, this happened to Glen Hubbard (one of Romney's campaign aides , who was also behind the Bush Tax Cuts):

    [IMG]



    Oh and Jimmy Carter now supports legalizing pot.





    EDIT:


    Yeah, just starting low for everybody makes much more sense... if the unions can fight for something better, then they can fight for it. If individuals can fight for something better, then they'll fight for something better. If individuals think it's better for them to be in the union, then they'll join (or just choose to stay with) the union. Sorry man, but I still see no credible argument against this.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012
  8. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    What are you talking about "just starting low for everybody?"

    It has nothing to do with that. When the unions win a concession for their members, it makes that improved employee benefits in that area likely for everyone in that class of employees, whether they are union members or not. Because that's how negotiating works. There is no way for an employer to segregate the deals they make with the union and claim that anything remotely similar is radically out of the question in all other cases. Caving for one person means softening for everyone. I'm not sure why you are having trouble grasping what I'm saying but your responses seem to suggest you still aren't following. If people benefit from the existence of a union regardless of whether they are members or not, that is a free rider problem.
  9. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    What I underlined in the quote above.

    And as I said in the very beginning, the union contract doesn't have to apply to all employees, it can apply only to union-members. Or they plain just don't give much away to the unions in negotiation.

    Employers don't come up with new contracts out of the blue, they just adjust the existing ones. And your starting point is not your end point in negotiation. There doesn't have to be anything forcing the employer to give non-union members the same package as union-members.

    Re-read my posts.
  10. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I never said there is anything "forcing" them to. I haven't talked about formal rules or procedures. I'm talking about human behavior. The art of negotiation depends on a few factors. Two important ones are A)knowing how "bad" of a deal the other party is willing to accept and B)how costly one party perceives the others current demands to be. Pre-existing union contracts reveal a good deal about A, and also moves the bar on B, as something that is done for 30% of people fundamentally can't be that outrageously costly. Especially when compared to something that has never been done before. By influencing these two factors, the presence of union contracts shifts the bargaining dynamic in favor of the worker. Again, this is a consequence of what bargaining is: trying to make an agreement between two parties that have imperfect information but desire each others' cooperation on terms most favorable to themselves. You can't legislate the fundamental dynamics of what negotiation is.
  11. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    Compulsory union membership is extremely rare in Australia...I was under an enterprise bargaining agreement in my retail job negotiated by the SDA (retail workers union) without ever being a member, as they were the nominated employee representative for everyone. I actually don't know anyone who was a member except the older members of the staff.

    I think a lot of the backlash has to do with unions being seen as a breeding ground for Labor politicians rather than providing a value-for-money service. I think they're personally a good thing (as particularly in low-skill jobs the employer has a position of power) but are open to abuse, particularly with compulsory membership.
    Last edited by MarcusP2, Dec 12, 2012
  12. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Yes, I know about negotiation....... your initial offer, their initial offer, your role, their role, relevant facts, your positions, their positions, your interests, their interests, the value you could claim, the value they could claim, the value you could create, the value they could create, your BATNA & WATNA, their BATNA & WATNA, your bottom line, their bottom line, other rounds of offers, initial approaches, adjusted approaches, potential triggers of you and them, questions, other factors, other parties to involve, research, how to weigh negotiation/mediation/arbitration/litigation, whether to accomodate/compromise/collaborate/coerce, etc. You don't need to explain the process to ne.

    And nothing you just said contradicts anything I've been saying, but I don't see that as a "free rider" problem. Are you afraid that most unions in Michigan will now lose over 70% of their membership?

    It may not be an absolutely perfect situation, but nothing ever is. With each policy change, you have to think: is the worst of the new policy better than the worst of the old policy? I would say the answer is yes, there is just not a strong argument to oppose the personal freedom of individuals making choices over whether they should join a union and pay it money.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012
  13. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    In news unrelated to unions, Michele Bachmann is still completely nuts.

    I have mixed feelings on the union issue, but I will say this: North Carolina is a right-to-work state, and our state branch of the National Education Association, only offers benefits to its members. There is no grievance procedures, etc. for non-members, although of course everyone benefits from their lobbying to the state.
  14. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    A bit more on Gov Snyder. A law is being pushed through to not only ban telemedicine prescription for abortions but will try to ban abortions from being covered by any insurance. Also, they are looking to pass Sharia law legislation, a bill authored by a fellow who believes Obama is a secret muslim.

    Derp.
  15. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    Mark Ames wrote a thing that you might want to read if you want a better picture of the michigan situation than you'll get from watching jabba-wocky for some reason attempt to debate a... esteemed fellow member of this forum
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Dec 13, 2012
  16. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Well the GOP won one: CNN is reporting that Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration as Secy. of State.

    So it pretty much looks like it's all but certain Obama will name Kerry. It's the easiest one to push through the Senate at this point and he may as well save tougher fights for Supreme Court noms.
    Last edited by Juliet316, Dec 13, 2012
  17. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Love how the GOP lost the election (war) but seems (so far) to be winning the battles.
  18. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    What does this have to do with anything? There is no law requiring that all unionized shops be "closed." Unions and companies work that out on their own. How is that different than exclusive agreement between two businesses where one provides a service to the other? Do you consider it an infringement on the "personal freedom of individuals" that some restaurants only sell Coca-Cola products instead of Pepsi, so people that want to be involved in soft drink delivery to said restaurant have to affiliated with Coca-Cola? That a company uses one cleaning service over another, and therefore anyone who wants a job cleaning its office has to be associated with one particular cleaning company? Then what does "freedom" have to do with an exclusivity agreement between two private parties? More particularly, how is said agreement so egregious that it justifies passing a law to ban unions and employers from making such an agreement, even if both sides want to?
  19. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The SoS nomination should never have been a partisan battle like this to begin with.

    McCain just wanted revenge against Susan Rice for criticizing him in the 2008 campaign as not fit to be commander-in-chief, with his "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" comments, and McCain probably just wanted to "beat" Obama (in his mind) on something, anything.


    EDIT:
    It has everything to do with this. You just don't seem to understand. And yeah, I think those other things are a little ridiculous too, but not nearly as bad a forcing a part of employee's paychecks to go to a union that they may not support. You can't deny that many unions are very political. What if where you worked, you were told that a part of your paycheck would be withdrawn to support the RNC? Even without the political aspect, it still is immoral to me. It's not like the payroll or income taxes, it's not being paid to the government itself, but to the union. There might not be a law requiring all shops to be closed... so what? None should be. Everything you say just makes me more confident that the Republicans are right on this one. I'll try and read the post from @Rogue_Ten later and might comment on that, but let's just drop this for now, ok?
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 13, 2012
  20. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Donna Brazill is calling this a sexist move on CNN right now, going off on both Obama, McCain and practically every male in politics.
  21. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    That's just ridiculous. The last two Secretaries of State were female. Before that was Colin Powell. And before that was another woman.

    It's just about the Republicans trying to win a battle on something... McCain in particular.
  22. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    I actually agree in this case. This is more about A)Making her a scapegoat for Benghazi and B)McCain making it personal.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  23. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Is it your suggestion that unions shouldn't be involved in politics? What exactly do you imagine as their proper role? Every other part of any given industry has advocacy groups operating to influence the legal and regulatory environment. Business owners use things like the Chamber of Commerce. Consumers have their groups. Even elements that are only tangentially related, like conservation groups, often weigh in (eg the Sierra Club takes positions on fuel efficiency). Why would it make sense for everyone but unions to be politically involved? Shouldn't they have a voice in shaping things like work safety laws and industry standards too? Especially seeing as their membership is the one actually doing the work?

    EDIT: To be clear, I'm fine with moving on from the new bill, so you needn't discuss that. But I'm just curious now since you seem to be suggesting unions shouldn't do any political spending.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Dec 13, 2012
  24. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    gerrymandering

    [IMG]

    And more, just read it. How the hell is this legal? How the hell does the vote get ****** liked this? Michigan, gerrymandering, the GOP lost yet gets the power and now unions are getting busted, abortion is attacked, right winged bs has power here. Yet we voted mostly Democrat. Snyder won by advertising himself as a friendly, harmless nerd. And this is the result. I do hope this does not become the model for the rest of the country.
  25. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    No, I'm saying people shouldn't be forced to join and pay unions.