# In Defense of Unions...



## midphase (Dec 12, 2012)

At times I feel as if I'm inhabiting a world which is more and more out of step with my personal beliefs. Yesterday Michigan passed a right-to-work initiative into law beginning the weakening and ultimate demise of the state unions. Michigan joins another 20 or so states which have passed similar measures (including Florida where I used to live).

As a professional composer, I watched with disappointment as the recent talks for a composer union were rejected and eventually terminated by the studios. Similarly, I have followed the recent discussions on this board concerning the AFM negotiations.

What continues to puzzle me is that people who defend corporate interests and support anti-union (or weaker union) legislations are themselves middle-income individuals who would greatly benefit from having more leverage when negotiating for higher fees or better pensions. 

It appears to me that the continuous barrage of corporate-sponsored rhetoric about how unions are bloated and corrupt anti-business holdouts from the last century has taken a hold on everyday citizens and can be summed by up this:

Unions = bad for jobs

Corporations = good for jobs


Do we perhaps forget that at the heart of it, despite their inefficiency (I have news for you, many private enterprises are just as inefficient), the union's primary goals are to improve or maintain the quality of employment?

We are upset at AFM's rates being too high, or that they won't budge on residuals, but do we forget that ultimately those things improve the quality of life for the musicians they represent? Do we believe for a second that if AFM rolled over and went away, all of a sudden Los Angeles musicians' income and quality of live would improve dramatically?

We at times feel exploited ourselves, so does that entitle us to exploit in return? We keep looking for the next cheaper way to record an orchestra, Prague yesterday, Russia today, China tomorrow...but do we ever ask ourselves if the lower fees that we pay these musicians allow them to make a decent living? 

We like to assume that somehow, someway those musicians are doing at least as well as us...but we are ultimately blissfully ignorant and like it that way.

I can respect (tolerate) a business' right to oppose unions and to try and maximize profitability, but I don't understand a worker's eagerness to fight for those same reasons in defense of business owners.

There is absolutely no indication that losing unions results in better conditions for workers or a better and stronger middle class. States which have passed anti-union right-to-work laws might boast marginally lower unemployment rates, but also have substantially lower wages (yey, more minimum wage jobs is just what we need).

So what gives?

Chim...take it away!


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2012)

This is one of those issues that I've never been able to reconcile in my mind.

On the one hand, I support measures that protect people from exploitation. However, I'm not convinced that unions actually do that. My experience with unions (mostly outside the music business but also a bit with the AFM) is that they're basically a mafia. They protect the interests of a very few who are in tight with the made men.

The sad truth is that people need to protect themselves from exploitation. You can't outsource that activity.

The other thing to keep in mind about Michigan's law (as those in other states) is that it does nothing to the union. Right-to-work laws simply say you have the right *not* to join a union as a condition of employment. Arizona is a right-to-work state - it still has musicians unions, and machinists unions, and electrical workers unions, etc. If you want to join, go ahead. If not, you don't have to. Why is choice a bad thing?

Here's a personal example: when I was in school, I made money gigging as a clarinetist. However, I was denied a number of gigs because the union controlled them and I never joined. Why should I be denied the opportunity to work those gigs? Shouldn't I have the right to work them if I have the chops? I did, in fact, have the chops, actually more chops than most of the old white guys relying on the union to keep them in place (certainly wasn't their wondrous musicianship that kept them there...). I wanted the right to work without having to join the old boys network. But the presence of the union denied me that right. Is that fair?

I can share similar stories of unions outside the music business - the sad truth is that they're often a mechanism to protect people who have no motivation to work.

So, yes, try to protect people from exploitation, but it's useless unless people learn to protect themselves, in which case you don't need a union, do you? At the same time, though, protect people from being denied opportunity because they're not part of the mafia. Also, don't protect people who have lost the motivation or capability to do the job that is being protected - let the next guy come in and take over.

Here's the bottom line: if you feel like you're being exploited, do something else. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work a particular gig.

That's why I never went full-time into music. Do I think I have some God-given right to work as a musician and composer? No. I didn't like the opportunities I had, so I'm doing something else.

That's how it works.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 12, 2012)

Big business wants to get rid of unions so that it can pay its workers less, offer fewer benefits, have 'free' trade with any country it pleases, reduce the power of many to the power of one, and, the biggest prize of all, get rid of its biggest competitor when it comes to funding political campaigns (hello Citizens United - sic).

People need to read their history books again and be reminded of why unions came to be in the first place.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 12, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Big business wants to get rid of unions so that it can pay its workers less, offer fewer benefits, have 'free' trade with any country it pleases, reduce the power of many to the power of one, and, the biggest prize of all, get rid of its biggest competitor when it comes to funding political campaigns (hello Citizens United - sic).
> 
> People need to read their history books again and be reminded of why unions came to be in the first place.



Have you ever run a business with employees?


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 12, 2012)

i grew up thinking unions were cool and a positive thing. and historically they have done many good things. and many of those things are now laws. like minum wage, 8 hr work day and 40 hrs week etc. 

but since i had to deal with unions and see first hand in the post world ,i see how much of a hassle it creates and makes anyone NOT to want work with unions. not only because of high wages but silly thigs like a union truck driver cant help in the lighting dept lifting things if they need help. 
a union post house no one except a union guy can operate a machine so if you are QCing something you have to have a union guy controlling decks. cant hire new people for tech jobs if an union "film guy" is available (who knows nothing about anything else besides film)
and so on. just really stooooopid shit that just makes you go FUK U UNIONS!!!!!

and then there is high wages. yes wages, should be good for everyone but its global economy today and its very competitive. studios just tell the producers who tell the composer go record somewhere else. no thought to it. thats it. its cheaper, less hassle , good performers and quality for what you need. 
why not have free market reign on that?!??
if they hire good performers here in LA then they would pay good. if they pay less then there is other musicians who would do it. then there is less taleented and somewhere in the middle is pricepoint of how much it should cost... for REAL. a demand and supply scenario. 
not many good musicians then price goes up for the good ones. too many good ones then price goes down, same as any business. dont like it, then dont become a musician or live in reality and live within your means. 

seeing all this talks about unions and how theyve become a mafia who wont budge to relaity of global competition and domestic compoetition gives them a bad rep. 
i think they should be around if they woulddnt be such asses while ontheir FAT asses.

i do really hate unions, but i would like them if for example they would help out in the middle and low budget shows and movies. get lowered level or new union guys to be in low budget and make it so those budgeted movies are paying enough and not for credits or other - take-advantage off scenarios. 
cause if you didnt know you cant be union unless you have worked on a union gig. like what the fuk rule is that?!?!? who the fuk said lets do this catch 22 shit so no one enters. !??! 
instead of trying to get more power they should try and help more. organize in other areas were workers are being taken advatge off. or with ssmaller produciton companies etc. places were they really need help. not fuking up big sweet golden high paid jobs. (ala Long beach port last week) like really!??! 40-100 bucks an workers were protesting not becuase of pay, but because they didnt want their jobs taken away oversees or else where. WTF shit is THAT?!?! 
if a company needs to lay off poeple they should. if its not illegal of course. i am not in favor of corporations and that right wing crap. its just common sense of wtf is going on with unions latley that are not accepting the changing world and just want more power and money. 

i do understand the sentiment for defense of unions but its until you have to deal with them that you gooo... damn.. wtf is going on with these guys? !? 
and then see bigger picture of corruption , ineptitude, stubbornness and greed.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 12, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ 12/12/2012 said:


> Have you ever run a business with employees?



I've never run a country, so I guess by your logic, I can't have a legitimate opinion about my prime minister or his government? Come to think of it, I've never directed a film either, so I should keep quiet about movies as well.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 12, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Peter Alexander @ 12/12/2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever run a business with employees?
> ...



no. peter has a good point. 

i worked for a post house who didn't offer any insurance, OT etc. 

when it grew and needed more workers and skilled labor , those new potential hires will not work for a company w/o those things. so the post house added insurance , pension etc. 

if it were union that business would of never had made it. 

now its a big post house and gives raises, bonuses etc. and hires competitively with other similar post houses in the LA area. 
the post house has surpassed other post houses that only does unions gigs. 

employees have benefits, have had kids, families etc. 
no unions needed. 
thank unions for setting a path but since then, they have cripple industries. 

so , no you dont have to have a business to give an opinon, but it sure helps. 
then muliply my example by millions of businesses and industries.


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Big business wants to get rid of unions so that it can pay its workers less, offer fewer benefits, have 'free' trade with any country it pleases, reduce the power of many to the power of one, and, the biggest prize of all, get rid of its biggest competitor when it comes to funding political campaigns (hello Citizens United - sic).


Nobody is ever forced to take a job with low wages or few benefits. If the gig is no good, don't take it. Then the situation will right itself because they'll have to offer better wages and benefits in order to get people to take the jobs.

Of course, it's not that simple. It's true that people develop a skillset and have few options when that skillset is devalued. However, a better approach is to offer them a means to expand or change their skillsets so that they can go after the jobs that do offer good wages and benefits. You could provide that training with less money than is spent on union dues. Fighting market forces is a losing battle - the market always wins in the end. Unions do nothing more than delay that process. Better to suck it up and move on.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2012)

This is more of the same: Republicans representing the interests of people who make money by owning things, at the expense of our country. Ownership is getting more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. It won't be long before these sociopaths reach their goal of creating a country with a few gated communities and the rest ghettos.

Yes, there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy. The Koch suckers have their greasy cloven hoofprints all over this, and they will throw around more and more money until they get a return on their investment.

What happened is simple: these greedy assholes would rather pay workers less and keep more for themselves. Period.

The only reason anyone even argues this is that unions often suck. But the alternative is far worse. Without wanting to broadcast family details, I can tell you that I might well be pushing a shopping cart right now if it weren't for an excellent health insurance policy negotiated by a strong union.

"Fighting market forces is a losing battle - the market always wins in the end."

It's not the market, it's concentrated power/money that begets more of the same. And it doesn't win in the end - it leads to rioting in the streets, if not revolutions. You can't sustain an economy the way we're going.

"Nobody is ever forced to take a job with low wages or few benefits. If the gig is no good, don't take it. "

What planet are you living on?!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2012)

Ned is absolutely right on all accounts. So is Kays.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 13, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> This is more of the same: Republicans representing the interests of people who make money by owning things, at the expense of our country. Ownership is getting more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. It won't be long before these sociopaths reach their goal of creating a country with a few gated communities and the rest ghettos.



Let me get this right......your wealthy Liberals who have destroyed California by accepting Corporate Campaign contributions in exchange for favorable legislation, and then negotiating with the Big Union bosses that also fund their "campaigns" is suppose to be a success story.....?

Here in Nevada we love our Unions, our evil Corporations and our small Right To Work Businesses and Contractors.
We voted that Corporations pay the Public Union Pensions and Union wages since they make Billions. 
Your wealthy Liberals continue to screw you with endless taxation due to their failures, which have now caused a 170 Billion USD debt, and 100s of Billions of unfunded pensions, which are forced on the middle class tax payers.
For Gods sake you have Police Chiefs retiring with more money than the President of The Untied States makes while he is in office........

Here's the deal......google the Davis Bacon Act, read how the Unions set wages and the total package costs, and allow the worker to take the extra cash or give it to the Union. Once you agree to sign over all pay, you must get vested, then after 25 years you can get your retirement. But if you just want to work, and are not sure if the trade you are in is what you really want, you choose to keep the cash. Otherwise, the 40% the Union takes you never get back.

I worked many Davis Bacon jobs and trust me, not a single Union worker gave the Local the extra 40%, they simply pay their monthly dues and then bounce back and forth between Federal and Private contracts.

But that is what this means. CHOICES........not some Mafia style strongarming where the Liberal politicians get the employees pay in the form of "campaign Contributions."
Or in Michigans case, the Membership dues which in Union by laws states, belongs to the members as an emergency fund for someone who died on the gig for the widow or children, or for strike pay.
Instead the politicians you worship have become the benefactors of these dues, and so now, the members can say where THEY want their dues to be used.

For example, I worked a gig where a young brotha died. The evil CEO/Owner kicked in 25k to match the Unions money, and then each member gave the shop steward 20 bucks so the young Mexican widow and her children could bury him in Mexico and return home with some gratitude from everyone involved.

Recently another tradesmen died, as it happens all of the time, the last job I did 12 guys died, and their spouses or children recieved the money. But the last 2 deaths in town here, the Unions had no money as it was mispent buying wealthy Liberal favors, however the evil owner, who lives in the same gated community as the big Union bosses, still paid a hefty sum.

This has infuriated many members, but the trades are suffering, but the working men and women still kicked in the usual 20 spots, and from 800 guys, that ain't bad, but they made the local look foolish.

You really have it backwards Nick. Maybe someday those you worship might hold the Corporations feet to the fire instead of giving them facials, and relieve the middle class from covering their endless failures.

In these Union only states you see the same parroted media talking points and division. Here in Nevada where we have CHOICES, there are no haters of the cops, teachers, Unions, firefighters, Casinos or evil corporations.
We love everyone involved and the system works.

I love California and fear for it's future as the same wealthy Liberals and Big Union bosses have no more hosts to attach themselves to, unless, they hold these multi national, multi billion dollar corporations feet to the fire instead of pole dancing and making the working men and women pay.

Funny thing is here where I live, there's a huge gated community, but it's inhabitaed by wealthy movie stars and CEOs who are Liberals, but really think they already pay enough in taxes, but whatever you do, dont quote them....Lord Forbid.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 13, 2012)

As an outsider to all of this, I would agree that Musicians' Unions are supposed to make things better for musicians, except that they don't see it that way. They attempt to make things better for a tiny minority of musicians. That's where the fatal flaw is.

In the UK it's very different, because it was decided back in the 80s that forcing someone to join a Union was illegal and a breach of Human Rights, so the closed shop was abolished. IMO, a Union can only function properly if the majority of members support their actions, whereas it seems to me that this is not the case in the US, because people are being forced to join the Union, whether they want to, or not. So much for freedom. :shock: 

D


----------



## KEnK (Dec 13, 2012)

I'm very pro-union due to personal experience.

Dad worked for Chevy and now Mom who just turned 80,
is able to live a reasonably comfortable life from the pension the UAW "weasled" out of Chevy. 
She also has health insurance.

Her best friend hasn't fared so well.
That women's husband was not in a union.
She never had health insurance and because she avoided the expenses she could never afford, (seeing a doctor),
she now lives in a State Run Old Folks Home, paid for by you.

I visited her there.
None of you would want your Moms to spend her final years in such a place.
This is the result your so called "Corporate Benevolence".

On a more immediate level, my wife's life (and mine) improved drastically after she joined her union. 
She's a camera assistant in the International Cinematographers Guild.

Question: 
Do you anti union guys think it's a good idea to lower the minimum wage to $1/hr,
so "we" can compete w/ China?

Do you want to do away w/ work place protections put in place by OSHA etc,
so we can have more workplace hazards like there are in China and India and the rest of the 3rd world?

Look at the economic trajectory our country has been on since Reaganomics.
We have experienced an unprecedented redistribution of our nations wealth,
and it aint going to you or me.

Why do think the Middle Class is Collapsing here?

Example- The US has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba.
Look at the rate of diabetes, illiteracy, pesticides in the ground water.
This list continues and it is huge. 

These are the Fruits of Corporate Benevolence.
These are the direct results of Deregulation.

How often do I hear people complaining here that a composer used to be able to get $500/min as a starting wage?

"Too many guys working for next to nothing or free now."

That's the race to bottom you hear Obama talking about.
It isn't pretty, and that's the road we're on.
Enjoy the ride boys.
:mrgreen: 

k


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Dec 13, 2012)

To blame liberals for dept is just non-sense. 

Here is the thing about unions. Because there are many more workers than jobs or businesses that hire, in a market driven economy employers get the upperhand and will eventualy drive wages down to as low as possible. That is not their fault or makes them "Bad-guys" just the way things are. You end up getting paid what you negotiate for, not what your true value is. Some might say that is what fair value is but i would argue not. The best teacher is not always the best negotiator, many times the worst.

So unions come along and help level the playing field and negotiate from a more balanced position. Is there coruption? Unfortunatly, sometimes "yes."

The only thing worse than having unions is Not having unions.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Dec 13, 2012)

KEnK @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> I'm very pro-union due to personal experience.
> 
> Dad worked for Chevy and now Mom who just turned 80,
> is able to live a reasonably comfortable life from the pension the UAW "weasled" out of Chevy.
> ...




I can echo this post. My mother is in the same position--different union. She thinks she is "rich" (nobody would think that if you knew what her income is). I'm not going to ruin it for her.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2012)

> Let me get this right......your wealthy Liberals who have destroyed California by accepting Corporate Campaign contributions in exchange for favorable legislation, and then negotiating with the Big Union bosses that also fund their "campaigns" is suppose to be a success story.....?



Take a look at the difference between the policies Republicans advocate and the ones Democrats advocate.

Of course money has undue influence in the Democratic party, but repeating the same crap about how both parties are the same doesn't make it any more true than it was when you were wrong the first time.

Was it Democrat political monsters who had ass sex with workers' rights in Michigan? Wisconsin? Soon Ohio?

False equivalence. Jimbo has it exactly right: the only thing worse than unions is not having them.

Write your representatives and scream that they need to overturn Citizens United. If you're in CA, support the DISCLOSE Act. (http://www.caclean.org (www.caclean.org))


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2012)

Letter I sent to the LA Times a few weeks ago:


Editor:

A CA Supreme Court emergency ruling on Sunday brought out into the open that the whopping $11 million donation from an obscure Arizona nonprofit organization against Prop 30 and for Prop 32 was actually laundered through other nonprofit organizations tied to the infamous Koch brothers.

Obviously, this vile attempt to buy election results is an outrageous perversion of the democratic process. And it underscores how deceitfully fraudulent Prop 32 is. Far from reforming campaigns equitably as advertised, it unbalances them in favor of greedy interests that run contrary to those of our republic. Legitimate campaign reform organizations such as the California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters of California are all vehement in their opposition to Prop 32.

This distasteful revelation also indicates how urgent it is that the California DISCLOSE Act be passed next year. Our disclosure laws absolutely must be strengthened to ensure that political advertising shows clearly who is paying for it. 

Voters deserve to know that the dishonorable operatives paying to defeat Prop 30 don't care that our schools would be forced into making even more catastrophic cutbacks; their only interest is in paying very modestly lower taxes. Similarly, these shamefully selfish people would love it if they were able to practically write laws that benefit them, without the inconvenient opposition of unions representing the victims of their money-grubbing designs.

Men like the Koch brothers don't spend $11 million because they want a better California for its citizens. They're not even citizens of the state; this is simply business for them - an investment for which they expect a return.

Truth in product advertising is the law of the land. We citizens have a right demand the same transparency in political advertising.

Sincerely,

Nick Batzdorf


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 13, 2012)

It's easy for me to distinguish between fact and fiction.
The Federal Reserve and Banks are the Commission, the 2 Organized Crime Families are their foot soldiers.
Their goals are self preservation, personal wealth and being the head of their own Regime (committee) where they can can gain further power and influence.

To believe there's some stark difference between these 2 Crime families is just media extension, fiscal cliff grandstanding and script readings.

If there's a difference....? Let's analyze our President who is a 1st Amendment Consitutional Law Proffessor and most staunch anti colonial and anti war President in our history, and good for him as I agreed with Obama the Senator.

But we see this noble anti war advocate now having drones fly over our neighborhoods and expand the Patriot Act, the Gun running on Steroids, criminals of Wall Street and Corzine as well as the recent UK Banking criminals let off of the hook, the excessive Deployments, and even assasinations of American Citizens abroad.

Do you honestly think that Obama wants this, or is ordering these unlawful acts, or is he doing as instructed by the Commission.....?

It is the latter, and therfore if the Oval office is externally controlled by the Commission, so are the 2 Crime Families.

Right or wrong it seems to work, but I am not disillusioned into believeing that somehow these wealthy Godfathers are concerned about the tax payers they lie to and steal from.

Just today we hear about our great "representaive" in New Jersey upholding the law and representing his consituents......

He's there for the free Buffet and stock tips.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2012)

hate to say this, Nick, but people who think 'The Heritage Foundation" or the "Center for American Prosperity" or any of hundreds of acronym-based organizations are somehow benevolent or apolitical are probably not voting anyway. There are also plenty of liberal Super-PACS and other funding organizations who are providing dark money for publicizing liberal initiatives. I think too many rich-ass people want to stay in the shadows for more visibility to occur, but your initiative is right on.

Re unions-As a presently inactive member of SAG, AFTRA and Local 802 AFM, I am grateful every month when I receive my early retirement pension checks, and I'm sad for the kids coming up that there is virtually no union work left in my field. Once upon a time, a few studio gigs a month allowed a lot of musicians to pursue their dreams. That ship has sailed. 

In the small town in upstate NY where I grew up, the union established a 4 hr wage, and the local rooms adhered to it. I was able to make a crappy living from age 16 because of a union wage playing clubs. When I query my younger musician friends who are gigging, it's very disheartening to find out they are working clubs for the same money I made-
in *1978*. None of these are union gigs. Ah, free market competition! I'm glad it works for Jim in Nevada, but it killed things in New York. Broadway pit bands use fewer and fewer musicians, and those gigs are a drop in the bucket anyway. Clubs get bands for free-and some bands pay the CLUB. Weird.

The unions worked for me, and I had no special in. I had some talent, made connections and tried to kill it on every gig I got.

(oh, and no, I'm not a Mafia member... I hear they don't take Jews.... )


----------



## Cinesamples (Dec 13, 2012)

I am 100% in support of unions - when they function according to their intended purpose: Keep fair wages, offer health and welfare, and safe working conditions...

But many unions protect the interests of the top 1% of their membership - I can point to a few examples. This is not a left vs. right issue. Corruption and greed exist on both sides, because both sides contain human beings.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2012)

Mike, it really is a left vs. right issue. The Republican party is doing everything it can to weaken unions. Unions tend not to support them, and also cheap labor is in the interest of the greedy assholes they represent.

Yes, that party really is the biggest problem facing our country. It's very likely that we wouldn't be in this depression if it weren't for them.

Now, what's not left vs. right is how real people are affected. The union you're talking about has a history of being behind the times - I know because I've been in and out of it since I was 20 years old (sometimes it worked for me, other times not). You'll also notice that the people protesting this outrage in Michigan are both Republicans and Democrats.

However, the same is true of lots of things. People who vote for Republicans suffer just as much under their sociopathic policies as people who don't.


----------



## Cinesamples (Dec 13, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> Now, what's not left vs. right is how real people are affected. The union you're talking about has a history of being behind the times - I know because I've been in and out of it since I was 20 years old (sometimes it worked for me, other times not). You'll also notice that the people protesting this outrage in Michigan are both Republicans and Democrats.



Agree with you here.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 13, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Peter Alexander @ 12/12/2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever run a business with employees?
> ...



You TOTALLY dodged the question. So I conclude your answer is, "no," you've never run a business with employees. 

As a former California employer, here's what I was responsible for and what I did to attract the best employees, all of whom were paid higher than the going rate for their positions:

1. Workman's Comp;

2. Matching Social Security payments (which now some "rich" former employees may not be able to get if some in Congress have their way);

3. Liability Insurance;

4. Paid one week vacation for first year, paid two weeks for second year after that;

5. Paid sick days;

6. Overtime (time and half after 8 hours - which I can assure you Movie-land ignores and gets away with, which I couldn't);

7. Starting salary for basic positions above minimum wage by 30%;

8. Full medical insurance after 90 days;

9. Bonuses for job excellence including Dodger tickets for those who liked baseball;

10. Cafeteria plan whereby under certain conditions, a business can re-imburse an employee's out-of-pocket medical expense;

11. Flexed working hours for single-parent or working moms;

12. Paid Federal holidays SEPARATE from paid vacation days (including Christmas day, which is a Fed holiday in the USA);

13. Christmas bonuses whether you were a Christian or not!

14. Special scheduling to attend kid's concerts or ball games;

15. 100% payment for college classes taken to improve themselves for the business if the employee earned an A, 80% for a B, 0% for a C.

16. Free soda pop;

17. Free coffee and hot teas;

Your premise about what "big business" wants is OFF. When you're first starting out, you can barely afford to pay yourself, much less an employee. As things improved, to hire good people, I often took pay cuts so I had quality people running the operation. There were months, plural, where I had to suspend even taking my salary to pay others.

There's a lot of sacrifice that goes into building a viable sustainable business on the part of those doing the building. 

Before anyone comes here and starts [email protected] on so-called "big business", show me what you pay your techs, their vacation schedules, their overtime pay when you have to work 20 hours or more straight to make a deadline, their med insurance plans, etc! Let's see those check stubs!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 13, 2012)

> Dad worked for Chevy and now Mom who just turned 80,
> is able to live a reasonably comfortable life from the pension the UAW "weasled" out of Chevy.
> She also has health insurance.
> 
> ...



Incorrect. What was "weasled" out of GM was paid for by EVERY GM customer since all those expenses were cost accounted and passed on to the buying public as a "fee" per car. In short, every new Union wage/benefit agreement was cost accounted into the price of a new car (based on projected numbers of units sold). 

And this approach worked until imports came in at much lower prices and higher quality. Now, if tariffs had been placed on those imports to make competitive with US car pricing, that would have been different. But that didn't happen, so US auto unit sales declined. When you have a decline like that, a car company gets into trouble since all those benefits are cost accounted per vehicle. 

Buyers buy based on price/quality.

Now! Raise your hand if one of the cars you drive is made in Japan or Korea!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 13, 2012)

Unions aren't targeted at small businesses. They're targeted at large corporations. 

Let's face it. A large corporation is a big, bureaucratic organization with lots of power and very specific goals. A union is a countervailing, bureaucratic organization with power and goals. As such, a union will be far from perfect.

But that doesn't mean that large corporations should have no push back. Individuals divided lack the power to negotiate with a large corporation. 

People can bad mouth unions all they want, but if they don't offer a viable, alternative way for workers to join together to negotiate toe to toe, they've complained but offered no solution.

Killing unions and preventing workers to band together is no better than saying that capital is not allowed to band together to create larger investments.

Divide and conquer.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2012)

CineSamples @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> I am 100% in support of unions - when they function according to their intended purpose: Keep fair wages, offer health and welfare, and safe working conditions...
> 
> But many unions protect the interests of the top 1% of their membership - I can point to a few examples. This is not a left vs. right issue. Corruption and greed exist on both sides, because both sides contain human beings.



It's amusing to remember that Ronald Reagan was President of the Screen Actor's Guild. History is a wonderful thing.

As someone who lived a block from and watched the annual parade of families past the former Triangle Shirtwaist factory where so many young women jumped to their deaths because their doors were locked, I am hardly unbiased. As the grandson of a non-union textile worker in the Garment District of Manhattan during the Depression,I recognize the precedents that compromise my objectivity in this matter. As a longtime union member myself, receiving pensions, my p.o.v. is certainly skewed.

That said, I respectfully disagree with you, not in the fact that there is union corruption, but supporting the top 1% of members is a good part of what keeps union benefits for all. If a prominent musician or actor is on a show, if prominent people play that venue, the gig is a union gig for all. That matters.

I also disagree that it's not a right/left issue. The right tends to be much more about free market capitalism when applied to middle class workers, though apparently less so when addressing the desperate needs of Wall Street bankers. Free market capitalism seems to reject the idea of minimum wages, onerous (read "expensive") safety regulations, guaranteed pensions, health benefits for workers, etc etc-because, of course, competition will determine who rises to the top and who doesn't, and if you don't achieve a middle class lifestyle, why, it's obvious you didn't work hard enough, or didn't advance your education far enough. Unfettered capitalism says-if you don't live well, it's your own fault.

The capitalistic system has done pretty well by me-but so have the more socialistic modifications to our system that have happened over the past 80-odd years. I believe in a mix of the two-keep the capitalistic incentive for people to achieve, but try to provide a humanistic helping hand and a minimal expectation of the fulfillment of basic human needs in our most blessed nation. Unions have lent a helping hand in this. The fact that most "right to work" initiatives are supported with back-room funds from gigantic corporate concerns whose biggest expense is employees is telling.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Dec 13, 2012)

[_Incorrect. What was "weasled" out of GM was paid for by EVERY GM customer since all those expenses were cost accounted and passed on to the buying public as a "fee" per car. In short, every new Union wage/benefit agreement was cost accounted into the price of a new car (based on projected numbers of units sold). 

And this approach worked until imports came in at much lower prices and higher quality. Now, if tariffs had been placed on those imports to make competitive with US car pricing, that would have been different. But that didn't happen, so US auto unit sales declined. When you have a decline like that, a car company gets into trouble since all those benefits are cost accounted per vehicle. 

Buyers buy based on price/quality.

Now! Raise your hand if one of the cars you drive is made in Japan or Korea![/quote]_





I'm going to respectfully disagree as this appears to be shortsided economics. Was the management's salary and cost included in the cost of the cars also? Because if we go back and look I'm sure will see that upper management salaries went up and up and those people could retire without any concern for things as silly and cheap as social securty. How many CEO's retired with enough money to fund a small country? But we want to put the blame on the workers for the cars being too expensive so a smaller amount of people can gather even more wealth. And that is actually the root of recessions and depressions. When we enter the end of a business cycle and too much money is in the hands of too few people. 

Peter your situation is more of a small business situation....and I applaud your efforts. I'm not sure Unions are necessary for a company like you describe, but certainly raised the bar for benifts that you had to offer. And that is a good thing.

One thing that drives me crazy is hearing business people complain that we have too big of government/Obama is a socialist and we are loosing jobs....So where do they send those jobs?? To socialist/communist countries!

My cars are made in the USA.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 13, 2012)

I lived in Michigan for 4 years and watched that state crumble. Detroit City is worse than some 3rd world ghetto. It's the saddest City I have ever seen.

When we moved up there we read a story in the paper of a union forklift driver who was making 106k a year with his wage and overtime. Yup, not a typo. He worked for Delphi and was filing for bankruptcy. Try and open up your own business and pay those type of wages. You can't compete and this is why a lot of the unions have seen their numbers reduced. 

The average wage of a UWA auto worker is around $40 an hour with around $38 extra for benefits. That's close to $80 an hour. When a handful of those guys retire you need an army of new workers to support them. People used to retire at 65 and only collect a pension for 5-10 years before passing away. People live to be 80+ years old and the math simply doesn't work now. 

At lastly, I worked union for 7 years and was chastised when I started there for "working too hard" You soon learn to do the minimum to get by and guess what? The place shut down. Poof... Everybody lost out. The mentality was that the "guys upstairs" were stinking rich and could afford $20 an hour as a base wage for sweeping the floor. The guys upstairs were actually thinking "We won't make it, we can't compete'

In the end that's why we tax payers had to bail out GM and Chrysler. The pension debt was going to crush them.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Dec 13, 2012)

dpasdernick @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> IAt lastly, I worked union for 7 years and was chastised when I started there for "working too hard" .





I had the same thing happen at a non-union place.


----------



## bdr (Dec 13, 2012)

Our local teachers union has had industrial action the whole year because they want an across the board pay increase regardless of ability and results whereas the govt. wants to bring in a form of rewarding the better teachers. My kids have had quite a few strike days at home this year,as well as so called 'curriculum' days which are supposed to be teaching planning days but are basically a day off.
The head of music at my kids school is a complete doofus who never returns calls or emails, is a terrible musician and had no interest in my volunteering to talk to classes about film scoring, even though I teach it myself at tertiary level and have scored in London and NYC. And why would he? He doesn't have to be good, or do things better, he just has to hang around long enough.

And let's not talk about our local desal plant, which cost around $3 billion of taxpayer money..the union sweetheart deals getting things like plumbers and electricians pay of 150-200k. Thank god for the unions!


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 13, 2012)

Jimbo 88 @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> [_Incorrect. What was "weasled" out of GM was paid for by EVERY GM customer since all those expenses were cost accounted and passed on to the buying public as a "fee" per car. In short, every new Union wage/benefit agreement was cost accounted into the price of a new car (based on projected numbers of units sold).
> 
> And this approach worked until imports came in at much lower prices and higher quality. Now, if tariffs had been placed on those imports to make competitive with US car pricing, that would have been different. But that didn't happen, so US auto unit sales declined. When you have a decline like that, a car company gets into trouble since all those benefits are cost accounted per vehicle.
> 
> ...










> I'm going to respectfully disagree as this appears to be shortsided economics. Was the management's salary and cost included in the cost of the cars also? Because if we go back and look I'm sure will see that upper management salaries went up and up and those people could retire without any concern for things as silly and cheap as social securty. How many CEO's retired with enough money to fund a small country? But we want to put the blame on the workers for the cars being too expensive so a smaller amount of people can gather even more wealth. And that is actually the root of recessions and depressions. When we enter the end of a business cycle and too much money is in the hands of too few people.
> 
> Peter your situation is more of a small business situation....and I applaud your efforts. I'm not sure Unions are necessary for a company like you describe, but certainly raised the bar for benifts that you had to offer. And that is a good thing.
> 
> ...



Sorry Jimbo but I'm also going to respectfully disagree. There was an article out a few years back up in Michigan that said the big 3 (Ford, GM and Chysler) had to charge an extra $1500 per vehicle just to compensate for the union pensions compared to Toyota (which is union but not "UNION" if you get my drift). They were already behind the 8 ball before they even bult the car. Yes, the cats at the top were making out OK but there's a lot less of them. I had a white collar friend at GM htat was there when we bailed them out and he lost everything. They bailed out the union pension and layed him and others off and his pension was not taken care of. 

I think we'd all like union wages and union benefits. The dude at the donut shop would freak out for those type of wages as would most Walmart employees, waiters, etc. The problem is you have to charge $20 for the donut...

With all due respeect...


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2012)

bdr @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> Our local teachers union has had industrial action the whole year because they want an across the board pay increase regardless of ability and results whereas the govt. wants to bring in a form of rewarding the better teachers. My kids have had quite a few strike days at home this year,as well as so called 'curriculum' days which are supposed to be teaching planning days but are basically a day off.
> The head of music at my kids school is a complete doofus who never returns calls or emails, is a terrible musician and had no interest in my volunteering to talk to classes about film scoring, even though I teach it myself at tertiary level and have scored in London and NYC. And why would he? He doesn't have to be good, or do things better, he just has to hang around long enough.
> 
> And let's not talk about our local desal plant, which cost around $3 billion of taxpayer money..the union sweetheart deals getting things like plumbers and electricians pay of 150-200k. Thank god for the unions!



Here in the US, we captains of industry fondly recall the heady days of child labor, sweatshops, slave wages, unregulated safety and union-busting hired thugs. Sadly, your kid is now being taught by a putz because certain unions have negotiated some dumb things, like tenure. While I agree that is not a good thing (I didn't think so when my kid was in school either) and there are certainly union abuses, perhaps it's not necessary to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Here, there was a time where there were very few labor disputes indeed-they called it 'slavery'.


----------



## composeradrian (Dec 13, 2012)

What I always find interesting about these political topic discussions is that more often than not, people argue how right or wrong the agenda is and not necessarily how right or wrong the MEANS is.

Case in point: Regardless of how I feel about unions, I don't think the government has any place to interfere in the matters of agreements between *employer and employee*. Whatever both parties agree on is up to them, and not for the state to decide.

I think this right-to-work legislation is very much a double-edged sword, because those who believe in freedom/liberty (and supposedly this bill) should also be supportive of limited government intervention. This legislation is in fact the opposite. It does nothing but further polarize the left/right statism mindset prevalent in our country the past 30-40 years.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Dec 14, 2012)

composeradrian @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> Case in point: Regardless of how I feel about unions, I don't think the government has any place to interfere in the matters of agreements between *employer and employee*. Whatever both parties agree on is up to them, and not for the state to decide.



+1


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2012)

Peter (A) - OF COURSE the cost of labor is part of the cost of a car (or any other product). That's a feature, not a bug!

If we want a country in which everyone can afford to live, we need to pay people enough to live on. Bear in mind that every public policy has winners and losers, but in this case weakening the unions creates far more losers.

And sure I sympathize with your lament about the high cost of start-ups, but then what do you suggest - eliminating all that to encourage start-ups? Do you believe that will be a net increase - if people leave big companies and start small ones?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2012)

Adrian and Sam, that is beyond preposterous. Of course we need labor laws. All that government/freedom stuff is a steaming mound of goat nonsense. This is what governments do: regulate what doesn't work left to its own devices.

Ayn Rand was a good novelist, but she wrote fiction.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2012)

http://billmoyers.com/2012/12/11/how-mi ... ame-to-be/


As President Obama noted on Monday, “These so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws, they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.” Research backs the president up. Last year, the Economic Policy Institute released a report estimating that right-to-work laws decreased hourly wages for all workers by 3 percent. When businesses make a profit, the beneficiaries are typically CEOs and owners, not workers.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 14, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> As President Obama noted on Monday, “These so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws, they don’t have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.”



The usual Obama contradiction of terms. My head is still spinning from the way these 'so called' RTW Laws have nothing to do with economics, and in the very same sentance say it's about working for less money...... :?: 
Sounds like economics to me.

I can tell you this we took 2200+ Tradesmen from the Carpenters and Concrete workers from Detroit and Lansing during the boom from 2002-2008, some are still here finishing up Terminal 3 @ Vegas International Airport.

I think they might argue with your Parrots about how it's better to have a gig, than to let the 3-400,000 USD per year Union Bosses stand "your" ground for you by striking and losing.

Nobody is going to lose any pay except the big Bosses and their wealthy Liberal beneficiaries, and that is nothing BUT economics. Otherwise you wouldn't see Moyers and other Parrots repeating what's been whispered into their ear from behind........ =o


----------



## composeradrian (Dec 14, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> Adrian and Sam, that is beyond preposterous. Of course we need labor laws. All that government/freedom stuff is a steaming mound of goat nonsense. This is what governments do: regulate what doesn't work left to its own devices.
> 
> Ayn Rand was a good novelist, but she wrote fiction.



But isn't fiction the source of inspiration for new ideas? 

I'm not going to cite all significant fictional literature from the course of human history, but it does have a role in understanding ourselves and society. 

But please don't antagonize libertarian beliefs. If anything, I'm simply highlighting that even though we may have different fundamental beliefs _(or not... I haven't exactly expressed any personal thoughts on the matter of unions/labor laws/etc so everything up until now has been inferred)_, there is common ground between us and that says something. You state this legislation is detrimental to harnessing a living wage, and I feel it's not appropriate for the state to enforce rules on agreements it had no place to intervene.

I certainly can't agree on that last comment, particularly with the amount of control from Congress given to a private central bank to regulate the economy. But that's a WHOLE other topic for another day. Maybe that will come up when inflation really starts to trickle upwards.


----------



## KEnK (Dec 14, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> > Dad worked for Chevy and now Mom who just turned 80,
> > is able to live a reasonably comfortable life from the pension the UAW "weasled" out of Chevy.
> > She also has health insurance...
> 
> ...


Excuse me Peter,

But nothing I said is "incorrect."

Most of my post was entirely subjective life experience,
w/ a couple of rhetorical questions and suggestions for research thrown in for good measure.

I used the term "weasled" as a sarcastic nod to the people in this discussion 
who think "Unions = Thugs".

A couple more variables to add to an already very complex equation:

At the time when the Japanese Auto Industry was winning the Hearts and Minds of the American Consumer,
The typical Japanese CEO was earning 16x the amount of the lowest paid worker.
In the US, the figure was 500x the pay scale of the lowest paid worker.

Those numbers don't mean the US auto industry was more successful.

Also the UAW included excellent Health Care in it's contract.

Japan, like most every other major industrialized nation, 
had a "single payer, state run, universal heath care system."

No need for Toyota to pay exorbitant insurance costs to a Health Care Mafia.

In the horrible backwards evil socialist empires like Canada, Great Britain, France etc,
Human Health is a Right, not a Commodity.

This is what figures into the cost of each and every Chevy.

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2012)

"I feel it's not appropriate for the state to enforce rules on agreements it had no place to intervene."

You're mis-framing what's going on.

Like all ideology, yours breaks down very quickly when you apply it to the real world. So yeah, I do "antagonize" libertarian beliefs, even though I have no doubt we agree about a lot of things.

By the way, we would be in another Great Depression if we didn't have a central bank.

Ron Paul is a charlatan.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 15, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> By the way, we would be in another Great Depression if we didn't have a central bank.



TARP was part of H. R. 1424, which was an act of Congress. It was administered by the Treasury Dept. Just sayin'.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 15, 2012)

Right, but the line about "the power Congress has given to a private bank to regulate the economy" is what I'm talking about. It's wrong on several conceptual levels.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 15, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> Right, but the line about "the power Congress has given to a private bank to regulate the economy" is what I'm talking about. It's wrong on several conceptual levels.



Agreed.


----------



## composeradrian (Dec 15, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> Right, but the line about "the power Congress has given to a private bank to regulate the economy" is what I'm talking about. It's wrong on several conceptual levels.



How is it wrong? I know it's a broad generalized statement, but where does it miss the mark?


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 16, 2012)

composeradrian @ Sun Dec 16 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Right, but the line about "the power Congress has given to a private bank to regulate the economy" is what I'm talking about. It's wrong on several conceptual levels.
> ...



Which private bank would that be? Do you understand how the Fed operates? (it's not a rhetorical question, btw)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 18, 2012)

This is worth reading. Dean Baker always is:

http://www.nationofchange.org/michigan-republicans-deny-police-officers-and-firefighters-right-work-1355821652 (http://www.nationofchange.org/michigan- ... 1355821652)


----------



## bdr (Dec 19, 2012)

Got my end of year school reports for my kids today (we work on a calendar school year here)..no comments, no marks, no nothing due to industrial action. Industrial terrorists no matter the rights or wrongs.


----------

