 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Kucinich, listen to the tapes of the Enron traders and try to claim that was not unregulated free trade at it's worst. The shortages WERE manufactured, and the dumb f**** did it on recorded lines! Thank God for arrogance. Why do you think there are regulations on cartels? That is interfering with free trade, if a group of producers want to set prices together, unregulated free trade assumes someone will step in eventually and undersell them. It ignores convenient things like the power of the cartel to, for example, tell shippers that we will boycott you if you carry the upstarts goods. I repeat, and history is replete with examples, that unregulated free trade will almost inevitably produce abuses exactly like happened in California.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
What industry - the energy industry? Assuming that, is he an engineer, an MBA, an energy trader, lawyer, etc. Before you go with "believe", go looking for the tapes, they have to be able to be online somewhere (I know NPR played parts of them in the last couple of months so you can start there), and also look at the well-documented energy trading schemes pioneered (or is that borrowed) by Enron. Just because someone is part of Wall Street doesn't mean he isn't engaged in insider trading. 
Now if you want to argue California set itself up so it was vulnerable, that is a different matter! That happened when the Republican governor let the energy lobbyists write the law, and the Democratic legislature let itself get sold a bill of goods; i.e. they got greedy and figured they would save the people all this money rather than look at the process set up by the deregulation. Plus decades of NIMBY, when the Californians wanted that energy while the pollution was downwind of them - as in adjacent states.
Add in the Bush adminstration appointees to the regulatory body whose name escapes me refusing to intervene, claiming there had been no market manipulation, and the final threads are cut out of the pockets of California businesses and consumers. Then there was Governor Davis, a man who made Gore look charismatic trying to fight industry and Bush adminstration spin (Carl Rover is a genius), making terrible misteps, and the public backlash help elect a semi-Republican governor. Which just goes to show you that the Bush administration has EXCELLENT domestic strategists.
Please, instead of quoting who "you believe" go and LISTEN to the evidence, and research the strategies of the Enron energy traders. While their depradations were not possible without all the other factors, they in the final analysis were the people ordering plants shut down and manufacturing artificial energy outages to spike the prices. EVIDENCE and FACTS versus opinions.
edit: verbs, puntuation, and articles - f****d up the first paragraph quite badly
Last edited by shawnmmcc on 09-07-2004 at 09:31
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is especially gaulling to here this 'unions are perfect line' when there are unions run by the mafia, unions which take pension money, unions which simply don't care.
|
I would never say that unions are perfect, but let's put it into perspectives.
Organised crime is involved in anything that involves money: corporations, small businesses, government, the Vatican, etc. So organised crime is probably controlling SOME unions.
Some union leaders commit crimes and steal pension money just as some corporate executives do.
Some unions are feeble and do more for employers than employees. Some corporations consistently produce poor products, yet continue to survive.
In short, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Depends what you want. Is a good worker worth the extra money they cost? That's for the company to decide. If it wants top quality workers, it will pay more, like Ford in the early part of the 20th Century. |
The problem with that is, almost inevitably, the capitalists have the whip hand. A system doesn't really work if it favours a side strongly over the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
In practice, unions asking for collective bargaining mean everyone is paid the same, regardless of quality of work. |
Quality of work is not rewarded regardless whether it's a union shop or not. Besides, the advent of assembly lines and other forms of automation wiped out any quality differences between individual workers.
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Personally, since unions in practice seem to not right the balance well, but try to stop change or moving forward (which doesn't help unemployed, companies or productivity), I prefer legislation to do that job. |
Without unions though there simply isn't sufficient push for workers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:36
|
|
Wooh, sounds like your unions are only crooks themselves and not doing any good anymore. 
In here, unions are important.. yeah.. our laws sucks so hairy balls, you can get sacked and that's it. Employers sometimes uses the weak laws as their toys and tools, it's sickening sometimes. The new rules tried to make the employment situation better only weakened the rules, so that employers would hire people more easily. That meant in practice, that yes, they did hire and fire a lot, put a new rotation going on. You can now hire anyone to do 4 months testing period. Most of these are the most easy jobs there is. YOu are in this training period, you learn the job in 1 day and train (=work) the rest of the period, but the trick is they pay you only half the salary, which is most likely minimum wage anyway. Basically you make CRAP money. Now many businesses do this I know because my friends have experienced it too, that they take you on that period, and they keep your hopes up that if you do a good job, bust your ass off, you get to be regular. But that's only to make them work hard, and when the time is closing in, they tell you that they won't be making you a regular, meaning you're out and get nothing. That's rape right there, not because it could happen to someone who just doesn't work enough to be able to keep the job, but because it's STANDARD procedure in many businesses. Then you just take the fresh meat, feed the same lies and fire them when the time is up, meaning you'd have to pay them the full minimum wage.
It's bad, no one even wants those in their CVs.. to have recruiter ask you why they didn't make you regular in some easy job. Makes you look like lazy or a failure.
NO laws protect a worker in training period. You can be sacked in a minute and told 'don't come back'. You don't have to pay them anything exactly to do that either, there just are no consequences. You can't make a case.
You NEED unions in many cases. You belong into a union, they'll think twice about firing your ass on bogus reasons. We also do not have a 'raise' culture.. you don't get a raise in here. You have to ask for that raise yourself, it's likely to be a puke on your face like 10 euros per month more after you worked couple of years to them. Granted, unions won't help you in that, but at least they won't fire you for that either if you dare to ask. Also, people in training period, and also many regulars, they don't get paid for working extra hours. ANd if you don't work those extra hours, you likely get fired anyway on some other bogus reason.
If you don't belong into union, you get minimum wage, simple. If you however belong to union, you can present the union recommendations. Plus, if those recommendations are not met, you don't have to take the job. This is if you then are unemployed, you get crap money and have to go to a totally joke procedures. They're JOKE. So, if you refuse to take a job, because for example they offer you half the money and 150% more duties, then you can say you don't do it, they'd put your ass to halt, you wouldn't get any money either, unemployment money, because you refused a job. In union, you don't have to take it if you don't want to, and of course you get better unemployment pay from their cash registers.
In here, you should belong to union or you're a fool. They're the ONLY ones protecting YOUR rights. Without them, you don't even get your basic rights. It's not asking extra, it's protecting what's legally yours.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Imran, you are quoting Agathon to counter MY arguments. I do not premise unions are all good, and as in most cases my posts are long to attempt to be nuanced. My post did give more examples about mangement raping safety in modern times, but please note that was to counter claims made that we are now safer due to being in the modern age.
I also posted two corporate examples that actually DO treat their employees right and reward productivity with favoritism. I spent less text on them, because I correctly supposed I would not be attacked by Agathon reference those examples, but I would face a challenge from you or Mr. Smith. Please grant me the courtesy of countering my points, and don't use Agathon to discredit me.  By the way, if you had asked me if Agathon was pro-union, I would have agreed, by the same criteria I judged you by.
Reference the energy market, I'll make a correction. THE UNREGULATED FREE MARKET IN THE TRADING OF ENERGY.  Okay, are you happy now? Actually, also at that point in the production of energy at already existing plants. So that's got two areas. The only thing they didn't have was the unregulated building of plants (which also includes the air quality bit, the pollution controls affect the construction and permitting process, once that and the construction are done running them has little impact). Given the lead-in time for building a power-plant, it was a de facto newly unregulated market - no difference between your scenario of unregulated and newly deregulated. In fact, the new power plants WERE being built, just out of state. I do believe I noted that NIMBY was a contributing factor. Oh, excuse me, Agathon didn't mention it, so I guess you don't need to counter it. Imran, you are much better than that, using ad hominem and guilt by association style arguments.
Oh, I forgot. It takes time, effort, and several paragraphs to counter an argument that attempts to be nuanced and balanced (and I in the end explain why I draw the conclusion I do, so I admit to a slight bias IF the choices are as you apparently presuppose). By the way, you mentioned unions skimming pension funds. What about the large number of pension funds raped by corporations in recent years, including Enron, the attempt to force older workers into defined benefit plans while essentially eliminating the pension they worked for the last 20 years, etc.
The fact companies are dumping their pension obligations on the government, through legal abuse of the bankruptcy system, is the next big taxpayer bailout and the tab is already somewhere in the 20 billion range and rapidly escalating. Those retirees do NOT get the full benefits. Imran, be careful about neocon arguments. For every abuse you can bring up about unions, anyone who bothers to listen to the news can bring up multiple counters in the corporate world. Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes (though W. is the worst) deregulated businesses to such a degree that rampant greed makes unions more, not less necessary. It's sad, because in a well-run company, as I mentioned before, unions ARE NOT necessary. That unfortunately is becoming a rarity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Exactly the point about deregulating energy. We agree with how they did the deregulation. Also that free markets don't always work. Regulated free markets can, but that is sort of like jumbo shrimp. Which makes my point about real world applications. At least we agree in one area. As an aside, note that the energy company's lobbyists helped write the law. It wasn't half-a** from their viewpoint, it was a brilliantly written law serving their interests. Again reinforcing my point about free markets, access, and how most free markets are anything but that, often at the behest of the involved entrenched companies.
No Imran, but you were making the pension fund bit a core part of your anti-union screed. By that basis you should be even more anti-corporation and free market, if you look at the abuses in that part of the US economy in recent years. My point is that you are using those examples to argue against unions, but I have not noticed you here, or in other areas, using them as a blanket example of the evils of corporations. Now here's the question. What proportion of corporations above a certain size - smaller companies often have limited if any pension benefits - have had problems with pensions, and what percentage of unions? If you argue that's different, under-funding and all that - most underfunding is not accidental, the companies are warned, and the higher level corporate officials take their bonuses based on performance which they overstate by de facto robbing the pension - oh, excuse me, they aren't robbing it, they just aren't putting the money in that they KNOW it needs.
quote:
Seeing as Agathon and others (such as yourself) make posts about how wonderful and amazing unions are it is reasonable for me to interpret that as saying unions **** don't stink and thus demonstrate that unions aren't always the wonderful and amazing God's gift thing that you people are portraying. |
.
Your words, Imran. I give examples of two well run companies/divisions that didn't have unions (GE sales division and Ben & Gerry's). Plus I state that a well run company doesn not need a union. That hardly qualifies as pro-union. I also proceed to point out, case by case, coal companies - farm workers - chicken processors, where companies are willing to kill, cripple, or expose (to HIGHLY toxic materials) workers. I wish unions were unnecessary. However, as the historical record shows, time and again, the greed factor that helps drive capitalism makes them, and regulation, necessary. Almost all of my arguments have been not how wonderful unions are, but how BAD some industries are, and essentially that the union is the response to bad conditions, not that a union is inherently wonderful.
Instead of just policing bad unions, Imran, why don't you come down here to Appalachia and become a coal mine inspector, and then let's see your bias. In fact, you could very possibly find some in Illinois, I believe there are numberous mines there. Contact some of your compatriots doing mine safety inspections, and see what they think of coal operators. Imran, I gather you are in an enforcement division. Just because you see the bad guys doesn't make most unions corrupt. Look at my quotes below, and note that the first one is from a friend in law enforcement, where they have to deal with the same issues. How many pension corruption scandals do you have for how many unions? Is the ratio worse than corporations with pension funds? Those would make this a factual discussion, not opinion.
I quote exact safety examples, which are industry wide, to support my premise. I also give examples of where unions are not necessary. I provide fair examples for both sides. You don't. We actually agreed about the inappropriateness of deregulating energy markets - we come at it from different directions, yet we do come to the same conclusion. Yet you take advantage of the differences in how we came to the conclusions to emphasize those, not the agreement. If you are wanting to rant against unions, then I guess I'll have to treat you like I do BK, for all his being well-meaning there is NO communication. If you want to deny what you said - see my quote of you above - well, we can all mention those who are very bad about that and/or misquoting/misreprenting other posters. Is that the group you want to be associated with? UR and I will continue to win the hearts of those who are still open to persuation by trying to be comprehensive, fair, and detailed. Your bias will only help make our case for us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Actually, if you look at my earlier posts, I commnet that industry players inevitably try to pass laws entrenching them. The industry lobbyists helped write a brilliant law for their industry that essentially let the current players ramp up their monopoly power. That is what actually masquerades as deregulated, and if you look at some of my exchanges with Berzerker on other threads (who I have to grant is consistent, he REALLY believes in unregulated free trade) I am consistant with that. Plus, do YOU want to live downwind of a truly unregulated coal fired plant? Please note, I am using INDUSTRIES terms in calling it deregulated. In a modern economy, to get real, there is only more or less regulation. Too much, and you suffocate the industry. Too little, and you get the safety examples I quote. To reiterate, like most real world examples there is no EASY solution, and it requires nuanced laws and regulation to set the proper balance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Actually, if you look at my earlier posts, I commnet that industry players inevitably try to pass laws entrenching them. The industry lobbyists helped write a brilliant law for their industry that essentially let the current players ramp up their monopoly power. That is what actually masquerades as deregulated, and if you look at some of my exchanges with Berzerker on other threads (who I have to grant is consistent, he REALLY believes in unregulated free trade) I am consistant with that. Plus, do YOU want to live downwind of a truly unregulated coal fired plant? Please note, I am using INDUSTRIES terms in calling it deregulated. In a modern economy, to get real, there is only more or less regulation. Too much, and you suffocate the industry. Too little, and you get the safety examples I quote. To reiterate, like most real world examples there is no EASY solution, and it requires nuanced laws and regulation to set the proper balance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-07-2004 03:33
Now that's a trip!
Again, with this utterly idiotic statement that since I'm critiquing unions (WHICH IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT... HELLO?!), that means I can't critique corporations. What is it with lefties in which they absolutely cannot debate the issue at hand and have to go into comparisons with something else which wasn't even stated or wasn't the issue to begin with? Again with the implication that I am anti-union. Again with the implication that I think corporations are all good with pension plans.
|