11-12-2002 04:14									#121
	Support Apolyton

Ramo,

quote: I could go out to international waters. Then there'll be no states, authoritarian or not.

But ultimately, you still live under the authority of the world hegemon, in this case the United States. If you do something they really don't like, they can and will come after you.

quote: You don't think the management has a large degree of authority over him?

I don't agree that this is an authoritarian condition, because the worker has a reasonable ability to withdraw from any condition he doesn't like and seek employment elsewhere. Further, it isn't authoritarian because the management can't involve itself in areas of the worker's life that are unrelated to the company - ie, it can't tell him where he can and can't go on vacation.

It's authoritarian only in the sense that management possesses a degree of authority over those they manage, but this seems to be an obvious condition of efficient (and for that matter, workable) business.

quote: I said he has little control over this actions, not no control...

And again, incorrect.

quote: You really think that if you find a random person with an MBA, he has more business dealing with janitorial aspects of administration than actual janitors?

I think that your average janitor would be no better at effectively managing people than his dog. Again, it takes specific skills in order to be able to effectively manage others. It is also important for the manager to have a degree of knowledge about the work of the people he is managing, and it is certainly a good leadership quality to "get down in the dirt" with your people, but I don't know that this is necessarily an inherent requirement in management. Maybe Ming (or another person in a management position) can give us their perspective.

gsmoove,

quote: Certainly, if a union demanded an enormous wage increase that couldn't be justified by economic conditions then they would be in danger of creating a situation where the management could decide that replacing staff is the most economically sound decision

I think a 24% wage increase over three years, what with today's economy and job market, can't be justified by economic conditions.

quote: This system offers the worker little opportunity to improve his conditions, unless of course unions become well organized, despite anti-union clauses, and are able to starve anti-union clause companies of their workforce(as has happened in the past).

The worker can improve their condition through both education and the forces of the free market. Educated workers are always more desireable than uneducated ones, as are trained workers as opposed to untrained ones - experience vs. inexperience.

Sure, someone in their first year of work, without a college education and no high school diploma might have it pretty rough, but even this person can eventually improve through the accumulation of experience and, possibly, the presence of natural skills or leadership ability (depending on their particular job - for example, in my job, one does not require a college education to advance in the company, but rather one must demonstrate good work ethics and a leadership ability, and sucking up doesn't hurt either).

	11-12-2002 04:20									#122
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd But ultimately, you still live under the authority of the world hegemon,

A global hegemon doesn't exist and never has.

	11-12-2002 04:22									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: A global hegemon doesn't exist and never has.

With very, very limited exceptions, the US can enforce its will on anyone it wants to, throw either economic or military means. That is, to me, the definition of a global hegemon.

But in his example, living in international waters, the US is certainly the hegemon, because the US Navy is stronger than every other navy in the world combined.

	11-12-2002 04:24									#124
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"With very, very limited exceptions, the US can enforce its will on anyone it wants to, throw either economic or military means."

You have a dangerously inflated view of what we can do. We can destroy the world easy. But we can't even overthrow a tinpot dictator without help any more.

	11-12-2002 04:26									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: But we can't even overthrow a tinpot dictator without help any more.

Believe me, it wasn't the UN resolutions that made Saddam let inspectors in - it was the threat of Gulf War II.

	11-12-2002 04:32									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Quite so. But the credibility of that threat relied in no small part on allied physical and political assets.

	11-12-2002 04:34									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

So? Just because the US has various basing agreements around the world does not negate the fact that it can do whatever it wants.

Sure, if you took away all of the US's foreign bases and military agreements and such, it wouldn't be as powerful, but we're talking about the situation as it stands today, not the situation as it SHOULD (IMO) stand.

	11-12-2002 04:45									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I think a 24% wage increase over three years, what with today's economy and job market, can't be justified by economic conditions.

I think if management accepted a first offer we could all agree they aren't worthy of the position. NEGOTIATION. Its not a bottom line, but thats beside the point. If it was a bottom line the union would still be in the framework of a market economy. The management could choose to replace workers if it was the cheaper option but they could probably talk the unions down to a much more acceptable figure, please read and answer the whole post so I don't have to repeat.

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The worker can improve their condition through both education and the forces of the free market. Educated workers are always more desireable than uneducated ones, as are trained workers as opposed to untrained ones - experience vs. inexperience.

This doesn't change the fact that the city will always need transit workers, even if the only ones they can get have PHDs. In a world where everyone has PHDs someone with a PHD is just an uneducated schmuck. So, we're back to the worker having little control. Individuals can get education or win the lottery or change jobs but there will always be the worker as again I'm assuming we always need transit workers and without unions their power is severely decreased. But please, this is not the important point. You ignored the important point below...

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23This system offers the worker little opportunity to improve his conditions, unless of course unions become well organized, despite anti-union clauses, and are able to starve anti-union clause companies of their workforce(as has happened in the past). Then companies are placed in a position where they may have to negotiate with unions and so we are full circle.

	11-12-2002 04:48									#129
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: The management could choose to replace workers if it was the cheaper option but they could probably talk the unions down to a much more acceptable figure, please read and answer the whole post so I don't have to repeat.

Well, the management should, by definition, act in the best interest of the company. What I am saying is that a union is in the wrong if they threaten a city-crashing strike in order to get an economically unjustified raise.

quote: This doesn't change the fact that the city will always need transit workers, even if the only ones they can get have PHDs. In a world where everyone has PHDs someone with a PHD is just an uneducated schmuck.

That's not a realistic world.

quote: Individuals can get education or win the lottery or change jobs but there will always be the worker as again I'm assuming we always need transit workers

Very true - and the job of transit worker, or other menial job, is often times the only job that a person is capable of doing or willing to do. Those who are capable and willing to do more, in a free market, most likely WILL be able to do more.

But that doesn't mean we should give more money or power to people who don't deserve or earn it.

	11-12-2002 05:01									#130
	Put an end to popups!

"Just because the US has various basing agreements around the world does not negate the fact that it can do whatever it wants."

We have to have the agreement of the host governments for any action we take. Really, it's not nearly as easy as you appear to think it is.

	11-12-2002 05:03									#131
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: We have to have the agreement of the host governments for any action we take.

And we can always use the carrot and stick to get that agreement.

At the end of the day, do you REALLY think the Saudis are going to tell the US "No" on the issue of using Saudi territory for strikes against Iraq? I don't, although I wish they would.

	11-12-2002 05:06									#132
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"do you REALLY think the Saudis are going to tell the US "No" on the issue of using Saudi territory for strikes against Iraq?"

They are likely to.

	11-12-2002 05:10									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

We'll have to see, I guess, but my bet is we end up using Saudi bases

	11-12-2002 05:20									#134
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd With very, very limited exceptions, the US can enforce its will on anyone it wants to, throw either economic or military means. That is, to me, the definition of a global hegemon.

The United States is the most powerful state on the planet today. But it does not dominate Europe and Northeast Asia to the same extent that it does the Americas and it has no intention of conquering and controling those regions, mainly because of the stopping power of water.

A global hegemony is a virtual impossibility save for the unlikely event that a single state achieves clear cut nuclear superiority.

quote: But in his example, living in international waters, the US is certainly the hegemon, because the US Navy is stronger than every other navy in the world combined.

A navy doesn't grant a state hegemony.

	11-12-2002 05:22									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This system offers the worker little opportunity to improve his conditions, unless of course unions become well organized, despite anti-union clauses, and are able to starve anti-union clause companies of their workforce(as has happened in the past). Then companies are placed in a position where they may have to negotiate with unions and so we are full circle.

Just curious, do you have a problem with the above statement? Cause I think its an important point. Just saying that unions are here because they succeded in a capitalist system not because of social programs or anything else. They have earned a position in capitalist society.

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Well, the management should, by definition, act in the best interest of the company. What I am saying is that a union is in the wrong if they threaten a city-crashing strike in order to get an economically unjustified raise.

Management should act in the best interest of the company but can an organization founded to protect the interests of its members act in the best interest of those members, using strategic advantage to gain an upper hand in the market? Forget economically unjustified, that is just the argument of those who would prefer for whatever reasons that they gain the upperhand. Managers want them paid less so they can spend in other areas, politicians want them paid less because it may mean other union troubles, taxpayers want them paid less so they can pay lower fares. Beauty of a market system.

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Very true - and the job of transit worker, or other menial job, is often times the only job that a person is capable of doing or willing to do.

Transit worker does not equal menial job. Your assumptions are ridiculous. There are many skilled workers being represented in this dispute, prob the reason the MTA won't be firing them.

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd But that doesn't mean we should give more money or power to people who don't deserve or earn it.

By what equation do people earn it? Would you have all earnings the guy who marketed the pet rock received confiscated because his idea was so stupid he obviously didn't earn it. The market isn't necessarily about earning anything through hard work or even intelligence. Its about exploiting advantages, filling niches and plenty of luck. Union members earn this through their solidarity and the cleverness of their leaders.

	11-12-2002 13:40									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS "I don't understand why the nannystate should forbid them to strike. Why isn't it just an employer/employees issue ?" Hershell: Because it's the nannystate that's employing them.

Irrelevant, as the state is acting in a private capacity here. Also, I thought the employer is the city or a city-owned corporation, and the ban would come from the state or federal level ?

As for fares: We pay 36 € for the monthly bus ticket, nowhere near covering costs. A subway system is a good deal more expensive... anyone got the finances of NY public transport in a link ? I doubt fares cover more than 30-50 %.

	11-12-2002 14:36									#137
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: A global hegemon doesn't exist and never has.

DD, you are wrong. A hegemon is the state that has set the rules of the system. A global hegemon sets the rules of world diplomacy and action. Great Britain in the 1700s and the US now are global hegemons. The US has set the rules the world now operates. The UN is a US backed organization. Human rights is a US forced value.

	11-12-2002 14:42									#138
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Adjust for cost of living in NYC, which makes a dramatic difference. And it is not more than most teachers in NYC make.

Why is the cost of living so high in NYC?

If other government workers get close to transit workers' pay, that's probably a good chunk of the reason.

	11-12-2002 14:50									#139
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Human rights is a US forced value.

Oh boy, hysteric laughter and a cold make a bad combo... ouch...

	11-12-2002 14:55									#140
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

You laugh, but the main reason for the pushing of human rights by the UN, was the force of the US in demanding that change.

The US was, in fact, one of the main parties pushing for the Geneva Conventions.

	11-12-2002 15:07									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What exactly do you mean by "pushing by the UN" ?

The US pushed human rights when it was convenient as a propaganda tool against the USSR, while it tried to minimise any practical impact. On which countries exactly did the US force human rights ? germany and japan ?

	11-12-2002 15:22									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

i wish i had a union as strong as that...cmon teamsters, get me more money.

	11-12-2002 15:29									#143
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: The US pushed human rights when it was convenient as a propaganda tool against the USSR, while it tried to minimise any practical impact. On which countries exactly did the US force human rights ? germany and japan ?

The US was very into human rights and believed very heavily into it. It was NOT a propaganda tool against the USSR. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, especially believed it to be extremely important. They led the calls for human rights to a big part of the international system. Ever since Wilson, the US wished for human rights to be the centerpeice of the world system.

You hear about human rights all the time today. Someone is violating human rights, etc. Human rights as a dictate of policy for the UN was something the US wanted very much so. After WW2, when the US became the hegemon and was able to set its rules in place, it decided to focus on human rights.

	11-12-2002 15:49									#144
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I have no idea what you are smoking to believe that. Subtract the human rights rhetoric, what remains ?

	11-12-2002 15:54									#145
	Support Apolyton

I have no idea what you are smoking NOT to believe that.

The international system that we live in was forged after WW2, with the strongest Western country, the US, leading the charge. Seeing as one of the main things emphasized was human rights in the new United Nations, it is obvious that the US, the leader of the system, pushed that view through.

Human rights wasn't at the center of international law before WW2.

And btw, most of the Judges at Nuremburg were American, the first test for human rights being the underlying force in international relations.

And no matter what rhetoric you've been fed, the US has actually been very big on human rights since WW2. The constant pushing by the US for the last 50 years have lead to an expansion of human rights. Or do you think the US disapproves of the PRC because we don't like how their flag looks?

	11-12-2002 16:01									#146
	Got spare money?

but imran, there are several cases where the US has violated human rights...although not domestically and at the level that other countries are guilty of, but internationally and through capitalistic tyranny.

	11-12-2002 16:12									#147
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Imran:

"Seeing as one of the main things emphasized was human rights in the new United Nations"

The UN charter focusses primarily on collective security. The US played a role in the actual human rights documents, but that's about it. Tell me, when again did the US ratify the CCPR ?

"Human rights wasn't at the center of international law before WW2."

That was a slow development that's far from finished. But again tell me, which one is the only effective international system for the protection of human rights ?

"And btw, most of the Judges at Nuremburg were American"

I used to think it was proportional for the allies, but I can't be arsed to dig that one up.

"The constant pushing by the US for the last 50 years have lead to an expansion of human rights."

That's a joke, right ?

"Or do you think the US disapproves of the PRC because we don't like how their flag looks?"

Do you really think the issues are about human rights and not strategic rivalry ? Please.

	11-12-2002 20:23									#148
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui DD, you are wrong. A hegemon is the state that has set the rules of the system.

A hegemon by definition is the only great power in the system. Merely being the most powerful state in the system doesn't cut it.

quote: Great Britain in the 1700s

Was not a hegemon because of the existance of other great European powers.

	11-12-2002 20:39									#149
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"A hegemon is the state that has set the rules of the system."

Even by your own definition, the US doesn't set the rules of the system alone. Everybody wants us on board, but is unwilling to give up some things to have us on board.

DD is spot on.

A good exercise is to look at the economy of the US as a portion of the total global pie and assume that national power = economic power. You can see that the US only has 25% of the power, augmented by our allied power of 25% in many/most situations.

	11-12-2002 20:49									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, especially believed it to be extremely important.

Oh, so that is why Truman dropped two A-bombs on Japan, murdering 150,000+ civilians...