T1B

Indiana will no longer force employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. You didn't have to join the union before but you still had to pay the dues, regardless. Workers are now free to choose for themselves if they want to be rewarded for time of service only, or for their value as an employee and their work ethic.

I have had multiple opportunities to join unions in my early days and passed each time. One place even included threats to me be union bosses. I just laughed and kept doing my thing and was rewarded for it.

Congrats, labor workers in Indiana.

Nice for the opportunity..but I see bad things down the road for the ones who opt out..like flat tires, keyed paint jobs, shit in the lunch box..it may work out and props for them..sometimes they still make them pay a like amount into some kind of slush fund.

My wife opted out of the union at a local government hospital because she was just not down with union style, and the liberal pussy eating bull dyke bitches tried to make her job and work environment hard, but it back fired on them when she got promoted to executive level and became their boss.

Left Seater wrote:...rewarded for time of service only, or for their value as an employee and their work ethic.

Yeah..."rewarded" by having your job sent to Guatamala or Indonesia.


The forward march of Americans kicking their own asses goes unabated.

Derron wrote:Nice for the opportunity..but I see bad things down the road for the ones who opt out..like being fired for no reason..it may work out and props for them..

FTFY.

Martyred wrote:

Left Seater wrote:...rewarded for time of service only, or for their value as an employee and their work ethic.

Yeah..."rewarded" by having your job sent to Guatamala or Indonesia.


The forward march of Americans kicking their own asses goes unabated.

I do understand the possible benefits of being in a union. Assuring their job doesn't move to a 3st world hell hole is not one of them. Infact, union thuggery is a prime reason for moving yobs away.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Derron wrote:Nice for the opportunity..but I see bad things down the road for the ones who opt out..like being fired for no reason..it may work out and props for them..

FTFY.

Pull the union thug cahk out of your lefty throat for a moment and actually think about the situation.

Having a MANDATORY union helps only one group, the union leadership and their lapdog politicians.

Having a voluntary union makes that union actually have an interest in it's members. As Mitt pointed out, being ABLE to fire someone is a good thing. It makes that service provider actually try to take care of you.

It also gives the employer an incentive to take care of good employees. Take care of them and they are less likely to run to the arms of the union.

Kinda funny how freedom actually makes people not shit on one another. Too bad you lefties have no interest in this fact.

As pointed out above, Marty and Terry don't get it.

The harder unions push the more likely those jobs go overseas. The two biggest things unions push today are work rules and pay. Of course they are always pushing both of those things together. They want to do less while making more money. Who wouldn't want to get paid more for doing less. Problem with that is pretty soon you aren't doing any work.

If these unions went in and said hey, we want another dollar an hour and we are willing to do __________ increase in order to get that raise.

Left Seater wrote:As pointed out above, Marty and Terry don't get it.

The harder unions push the more likely those jobs go overseas. The two biggest things unions push today are work rules and pay. Of course they are always pushing both of those things together. They want to do less while making more money. Who wouldn't want to get paid more for doing less. Problem with that is pretty soon you aren't doing any work.

If these unions went in and said hey, we want another dollar an hour and we are willing to do __________ increase in order to get that raise.

Yep, it's that simple. It doesn't have anything at all to do with companies using NAFTA and GATT to force American workers to compete against 3rd world workers with no rights and 1/50th the pay.

BSmack wrote:

Left Seater wrote:As pointed out above, Marty and Terry don't get it.

The harder unions push the more likely those jobs go overseas. The two biggest things unions push today are work rules and pay. Of course they are always pushing both of those things together. They want to do less while making more money. Who wouldn't want to get paid more for doing less. Problem with that is pretty soon you aren't doing any work.

If these unions went in and said hey, we want another dollar an hour and we are willing to do __________ increase in order to get that raise.

Yep, it's that simple. It doesn't have anything at all to do with companies using NAFTA and GATT to force American workers to compete against 3rd world workers with no rights and 1/50th the pay.

No, it's not that simple. Being buttfukked in the mouth by NAFTA and GATT are part of the problem. Trouble is, we have them, so we must deal with it.

It would be kind of nice to just reduce the rest of the world's industrial capacity to a pile of smoldering rubble, but, it's not going to happen. It's not 1947. It's 2012. Deal with it.

The best way is to keep us competitive. We can't match 3rd world shithole wages, so we must beat them elsewhere. We have the advantage of being local. We have the advantage of not having to deal with 3rd world despot governments. There is value in all this, but, it doesn't mean US producers can dictate prices completely.

It may make financial sense to a customer to pay 4X the labor cost and produce it locally. This doesn't mean it makes sense to pay 6X the cost.

smackaholic wrote: It may make financial sense to a customer to pay 4X the labor cost and produce it locally. This doesn't mean it makes sense to pay 6X the cost.

OK..you may exhale now and take your lips off the crack pipe already this morning. Let's assume a couple of things here.

You have a commodity type item you are trying to sell. One of my gigs is selling infield conditioners for baseball and soft ball fields. These products are virtually alike, as are many of today's consumer products. A large national company has a great distribution network, and derives its sales from that. The distribution network requires about a 15% margin to the end user. They sell it for about $ 8.50 a 50 pound bag. I don't know what the labor component is in their cost structure, but ours is $ 2.60 per bag. So we can assume theirs is similar.

The company I sell for brings the product in bulk, bags it and sells it and requires a 23% margin to achieve minimum gross margin. We sell it for $ 9.65 a bag. So based up on your very flawed rationale is that I should be able to have a labor cost of $ 10.40 with my other costs at $ 5.90 for a sale price of $ 16.30 a bag, and that my customer because we are adding the value locally will pay $ 7.80 more per bag for the "local" factor. What a complete load of fucking horseshit.

In today's McDonals / Costco mentality the days of a product commanding almost a 100% premium price for local manufacture is never going to happen. If you are 4X the cost of your competitor, you are going out of business sooner rather than later. Mix in some Business 101, or Math 20 and you might have a basic understanding of product pricing.

Derron wrote:

smackaholic wrote: It may make financial sense to a customer to pay 4X the labor cost and produce it locally. This doesn't mean it makes sense to pay 6X the cost.

OK..you may exhale now and take your lips off the crack pipe already this morning. Let's assume a couple of things here.

You have a commodity type item you are trying to sell. One of my gigs is selling infield conditioners for baseball and soft ball fields. These products are virtually alike, as are many of today's consumer products. A large national company has a great distribution network, and derives its sales from that. The distribution network requires about a 15% margin to the end user. They sell it for about $ 8.50 a 50 pound bag. I don't know what the labor component is in their cost structure, but ours is $ 2.60 per bag. So we can assume theirs is similar.

The company I sell for brings the product in bulk, bags it and sells it and requires a 23% margin to achieve minimum gross margin. We sell it for $ 9.65 a bag. So based up on your very flawed rationale is that I should be able to have a labor cost of $ 10.40 with my other costs at $ 5.90 for a sale price of $ 16.30 a bag, and that my customer because we are adding the value locally will pay $ 7.80 more per bag for the "local" factor. What a complete load of fucking horseshit.

In today's McDonals / Costco mentality the days of a product commanding almost a 100% premium price for local manufacture is never going to happen. If you are 4X the cost of your competitor, you are going out of business sooner rather than later. Mix in some Business 101, or Math 20 and you might have a basic understanding of product pricing.

Easy there duhron. When I say locally, I am not talking Portland versus Seattle. I am talking Portland versus eastbumfukkistan. And my 4X number is just a number I pulled out of my arse to demonstrate a point.

Don't you wish you could pull sumptin' out yer ass nowadays? :)

Smakie, you're just reciting talking points from some Koch brothers' sponsored "institutes" as well as the usual right-wing radio blather. First, just because GATT And NAFTA are on the books sure as hell doesn't make them necessary or permanent. The race to the bottom for wages and lack of worker's benefits is a disgusting endeavor enjoined by callous international corporations who have nominal nationality at best. It is this very structure which has undermined not just our economy but a wide variety of others as well. Your simplistic "suck it up" attitude is just some mewling Newt puke, or Limpdick ranting. It's vaporous in its substance.

Labor unions may well be challenged, and may well require various respective reforms, but their essential value and place of honor in our history, as well as other nations, is tremendous. Simply put, there would be no middle class at all without them. There would be just gated compounds and massive slums--which is exactly what is becoming the norm in America as the unions are weakened and the corporatists just suck it all in. So do give us a break with your auto-droning hack blather. It's not just that it's totally fake and uninformed, but that it's embarrassing to see someone acting so puppet-like.

smackaholic wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Derron wrote:Nice for the opportunity..but I see bad things down the road for the ones who opt out..like being fired for no reason..it may work out and props for them..

FTFY.

Pull the union thug cahk out of your lefty throat for a moment and actually think about the situation.

Having a MANDATORY union helps only one group, the union leadership and their lapdog politicians.

Having a voluntary union makes that union actually have an interest in it's members. As Mitt pointed out, being ABLE to fire someone is a good thing. It makes that service provider actually try to take care of you.

It also gives the employer an incentive to take care of good employees. Take care of them and they are less likely to run to the arms of the union.

Kinda funny how freedom actually makes people not shit on one another. Too bad you lefties have no interest in this fact.

You obviously don't understand "right to work." It's actually a misnomer, since it involves neither rights nor work.

"Right to work" allows the employer to ban unions completely, with no fear of repercussion of any sort.

Badmouth the unions if you want, but unions are the reason we have things like minimum wage and maximum hours laws, worker safety laws, etc. Going back to the future is not the right approach, unless we want to turn this country, slowly but surely, into a banana republic.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Left Seater wrote:As pointed out above, Marty and Terry don't get it.

The harder unions push the more likely those jobs go overseas. The two biggest things unions push today are work rules and pay. Of course they are always pushing both of those things together. They want to do less while making more money. Who wouldn't want to get paid more for doing less. Problem with that is pretty soon you aren't doing any work.

If these unions went in and said hey, we want another dollar an hour and we are willing to do __________ increase in order to get that raise.

Yep, it's that simple. It doesn't have anything at all to do with companies using NAFTA and GATT to force American workers to compete against 3rd world workers with no rights and 1/50th the pay.

No, it's not that simple. Being buttfukked in the mouth by NAFTA and GATT are part of the problem. Trouble is, we have them, so we must deal with it.

It would be kind of nice to just reduce the rest of the world's industrial capacity to a pile of smoldering rubble, but, it's not going to happen. It's not 1947. It's 2012. Deal with it.

The best way is to keep us competitive. We can't match 3rd world shithole wages, so we must beat them elsewhere. We have the advantage of being local. We have the advantage of not having to deal with 3rd world despot governments. There is value in all this, but, it doesn't mean US producers can dictate prices completely.

It may make financial sense to a customer to pay 4X the labor cost and produce it locally. This doesn't mean it makes sense to pay 6X the cost.

Since we're also talking about outsourcing, that's the reason that job growth in the manufacturing sector is all but nonexistant. Corporate America is too busy outsourcing its manufacturing jobs to China, India and Mexico, where it can pay kids pennies a day to do the same work it used to have to pay adults in America $20-30 per hour to do. And work said Chinese, Indian and Mexican kids twice as long as said American adults.

With small businesses, you don't have to worry too much about outsourcing, unless the small business owner wants to move overseas in the process.

Outsourcing also doesn't affect the service sector to nearly the same extent as the manufacturing sector. Going back to your McDonald's example, a McDonald's in Portland has to employ workers in Portland, a McDonald's in Seattle has to employ workers in Seattle, etc. They simply can't outsource those jobs. The unfortunate thing is, it's pretty much impossible to support a family, or even yourself, on a McDonald's salary, unless maybe if you're in upper management.

And even the service sector is not entirely immune to outsourcing. With telecom deregulation having cut significantly the cost of overseas and toll-free telephone lines, a lot of call centers are moving overseas. Maybe it's just me, but I notice an Indian accent on an awful lot of call center employees' voices these days.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Badmouth the unions if you want, but unions are the reason we have things like minimum wage and maximum hours laws, worker safety laws, etc. Going back to the future is not the right approach, unless we want to turn this country, slowly but surely, into a banana republic.

This poor guy probably wouldn't be issued safety glasses if it weren't for his union.

smackaholic wrote:
I am talking Portland versus eastbumfukkistan. And my 4X number is just a number I pulled out of my arse to demonstrate a point.

You pull a completely bullshit number of of your ass and expect to make a case for it. You did not demonstrate a point. Still a complete load of bullshit no matter where you try to spin it. It is my experience in the last 30 years in the sales and management side that you seldom can command more than a 5% price premium over a competing product or service , based upon perceived better quality, local manufacturing or anything else, since there are so many options in our "new economy". Maybe if you start knobbing off fag executives or eating some 65 yo skanks nasty gash you might get that extra 5%, but in today's market, low cost seems to trump a lot of things.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: You obviously don't understand "right to work." It's actually a misnomer, since it involves neither rights nor work.

"Right to work" allows the employer to ban unions completely, with no fear of repercussion of any sort.

Huh, I was thinking the same thing about you not understanding "right to work".

Under "Right to Work" the worker has the RIGHT to choose.

Giving the WORKER the ability to choose is somehow wrong? You honestly think someone should be forced to pay a union in order to be employed? If the answer is yes, you are saying someone MUST pay to have the job.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Labor unions may well be challenged, and may well require various respective reforms, but their essential value and place of honor in our history, as well as other nations, is tremendous.

Couldn't agree more. Their place in History is duly noted and my thanks to those who fought those battles. Too bad today's union leaders are nothing like their predecessors.




The left bashes people over the head with the "Choice" line when it come to abortion, but doesn't want individual choice anywhere else. Obamacare, no choice. Union membership, no choice. Grocery bag tax, no choice.

Sure, and pumping toxic chemicals into the water table to frack natural gas--no choice...unless the GOP gets its way with its massively funded PAC bullshit.

Fact is, your statements are simplistic and lacking any sort of scope or context.

Why are you sucking the coporatist teat? None of you dare mention... :wink:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Sure, and pumping toxic chemicals into the water table to frack natural gas--no choice...unless the GOP gets its way with its massively funded PAC bullshit.

Are you still watching tv and heating your home? Thought so. Choice. :wink:

Derron wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
I am talking Portland versus eastbumfukkistan. And my 4X number is just a number I pulled out of my arse to demonstrate a point.

You pull a completely bullshit number of of your ass and expect to make a case for it. You did not demonstrate a point. Still a complete load of bullshit no matter where you try to spin it. It is my experience in the last 30 years in the sales and management side that you seldom can command more than a 5% price premium over a competing product or service , based upon perceived better quality, local manufacturing or anything else, since there are so many options in our "new economy". Maybe if you start knobbing off fag executives or eating some 65 yo skanks nasty gash you might get that extra 5%, but in today's market, low cost seems to trump a lot of things.

I'm not making a case for any particular number, shit for brains. Just explaining that there are advantages to doing bidness inside the US rather than a 3rd world shithole. If those advantages only allow us a 5% wage differential, then we're fukked. Might as well hand the keys over to the fukking slopes right now.

smackaholic wrote:It also gives the employer an incentive to take care of good employees. Take care of them and they are less likely to run to the arms of the union.

And what has kept employers from taking care of their employees well enough that they wouldn't feel the need to organize before this?

Diego in Seattle wrote:
And what has kept employers from taking care of their employees well enough that they wouldn't feel the need to organize before this?

If you don't take care of your employees they can go down the street to someone who will. Plenty of groups publish lists of the best companies to work for. The great thing is we are all free to go apply with these companies. The problem for some is these companies get so many applications they are able to hire the best of the best.

Employees can also start their own company if they are being mistreated.

smackaholic wrote:union thuggery is a prime reason for moving yobs away.

no. it may be a factor, but it is so inconsequential that I doubt it even comes to mind.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

smackaholic wrote:union thuggery is a prime reason for moving yobs away.

no. it may be a factor, but it is so inconsequential that I doubt it even comes to mind.

want a good example?

vw had a plant in PA back in the 70s. they built another in the 80s. a coupla years later, they picked up and left that shiny new plant and headed to meheeeco. why would you go to the expense and walk away from a new plant? did they all of a sudden wake up and realize messicans would work cheaper? or did they just get tired of unions demanding 20 bucks an hour for floor sweepers?

i remember talking to a vw pimp back in the late 80s, shortly after they moved south and he said it was precisely because they were tired of being bent over by the UAW who apparently figured they couldn't possibly walk away from a new plant.

i am not saying it's the only reason or even the biggest reason. but, it sure as hell does figure into the equation.

just having a union does not mean that low skilled labor can demand hi skilled labor rates.

I think my favourite bit of Leftseater analysis was an Air France Airbus flying into a giant electrical storm and disappearing.

He then went on to suspect Al Queda.

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:
And what has kept employers from taking care of their employees well enough that they wouldn't feel the need to organize before this?

If you don't take care of your employees they can go down the street to someone who will. Plenty of groups publish lists of the best companies to work for. The great thing is we are all free to go apply with these companies. The problem for some is these companies get so many applications they are able to hire the best of the best.

Employees can also start their own company if they are being mistreated.

Fail.

You want to try again, this time answering the question I asked?

Left Seater wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: You obviously don't understand "right to work." It's actually a misnomer, since it involves neither rights nor work.

"Right to work" allows the employer to ban unions completely, with no fear of repercussion of any sort.

Huh, I was thinking the same thing about you not understanding "right to work".

A February 2011 Economic Policy Institute study found[11]
• Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state.
• The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
• The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

And yes, I realize Wikipedia isn't always reliable, but in this case they've cited their source.

If right-to-work laws are such a great thing, why are workers in right-to-work states treated so much more shabbily than their counterparts in non-right-to-work states?

"And now all the New York and New England players will return to their homes in income tax-free Florida and Texas."

Wonder if there is a correlation with state income taxes. I see Oklahoma is on the verge of being able to eliminate theirs.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
If right-to-work laws are such a great thing, why are workers in right-to-work states treated so much more shabbily than their counterparts in non-right-to-work states?

$1500 dollars difference on average in annual wages. Take the difference In living in places with growing economies, better housing markets for the most part, lower taxes if there is an income tax at all, and I would say those making less are actually better off.

My wife and I live a much higher standard today than we did in Mass and Philly. Combined we make about $30K less than we did there, but without city taxes, state taxes, over valued home prices, heating oil, tolls, etc we live far better today.

Left Seater wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
If right-to-work laws are such a great thing, why are workers in right-to-work states treated so much more shabbily than their counterparts in non-right-to-work states?

$1500 dollars difference on average in annual wages. Take the difference In living in places with growing economies, better housing markets for the most part, lower taxes if there is an income tax at all, and I would say those making less are actually better off.

My wife and I live a much higher standard today than we did in Mass and Philly. Combined we make about $30K less than we did there, but without city taxes, state taxes, over valued home prices, heating oil, tolls, etc we live far better today.

It's a no brainer, lefty. Terry knows this, but won't admit it.

I would like to see this study done with a number on disposable income rather than income. Also, you have to figure in how much of the RTW state's income difference is due to mom staying home.....because she can.

smackaholic wrote:Also, you have to figure in how much of the RTW state's income difference is due to mom staying home.....because she can.

Do you actually believe the shit dribbles you leave on this board?

Left Seater wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
If right-to-work laws are such a great thing, why are workers in right-to-work states treated so much more shabbily than their counterparts in non-right-to-work states?

$1500 dollars difference on average in annual wages. Take the difference In living in places with growing economies, better housing markets for the most part, lower taxes if there is an income tax at all, and I would say those making less are actually better off.

My wife and I live a much higher standard today than we did in Mass and Philly. Combined we make about $30K less than we did there, but without city taxes, state taxes, over valued home prices, heating oil, tolls, etc we live far better today.

Moving the goalposts, are we? As the link said:

Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators.

That $1,500 annual difference is not a gross difference. It's a difference that has been adjusted for a number of factors, including cost of living, state taxes, etc. Also worth noting that the comparison was between individual workers, not household income, so smackaholic's point about more women staying home from work in right-to-work states is irrelevant, if it's even true in the first place.

Wolfman wrote:"And now all the New York and New England players will return to their homes in income tax-free Florida and Texas."

Wonder if there is a correlation with state income taxes. I see Oklahoma is on the verge of being able to eliminate theirs.

IIRC (could be wrong about this but I'm in the ballpark) the minimum annual salary for a player in the NFL is $400K/year. Ya think maybe that someone who earns that much money (if not considerably more), and whose earning ability is not affected by where he lives, might want to live in a state with no state income tax?

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what your post had to do at all with a thread about people who are nowhere near that earning level.

Terry,

I read and understood that. I will take back the tax part of my statement, but the remainder still stands. I would love to see how the authors of that survey/study put a dollar figure on a growing economy and housing markets that weren't correcting daily. But let's just assume they did put a number to both of those, I still maintain that those making the $1500 less are better off. I would much rather be in a growing economy and region that doesn't have hundreds of thousands of upside down mortgages.

Much better to be late to the party, than to be the last one off of a sinking ship.

Lefty,

I think you're generalizing just a bit, particularly when you're talking about homeowners being upside-down on their mortgages. Florida and Nevada are two of the worst states in the country in that category. Both are right-to-work states.

Possibly.

The overall point was that Indiana workers are no longer hostage to union dues. They now get the choice. Everything else aside, I have a hard time understanding how anyone would be against the worker having the choice to pay the dues or to not pay the dues.

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Also, you have to figure in how much of the RTW state's income difference is due to mom staying home.....because she can.

Do you actually believe the shit dribbles you leave on this board?

yeah, some of them.

are you gonna deny that in an area where the average home sells for well over 200K, there aren't more dual income households compared to an area where similar houses may see for 100K give or take a few thousand?

Left Seater wrote:Possibly.

The overall point was that Indiana workers are no longer hostage to union dues. They now get the choice. Everything else aside, I have a hard time understanding how anyone would be against the worker having the choice to pay the dues or to not pay the dues.

He knows that the public sector unions put bazillions in the coffers of the politicians he supports. EOS.

Left Seater wrote:Possibly.

The overall point was that Indiana workers are no longer hostage to union dues. They now get the choice. Everything else aside, I have a hard time understanding how anyone would be against the worker having the choice to pay the dues or to not pay the dues.

The worker had a choice to work at a union shop or to not work at a union shop before "right to work." Now freeloaders can leach off the union's benevolence while the hard working proletariat pay their dues.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: why are workers in right-to-work states treated so much more shabbily than their counterparts in non-right-to-work states?

They aren't.

smackaholic wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Also, you have to figure in how much of the RTW state's income difference is due to mom staying home.....because she can.

Do you actually believe the shit dribbles you leave on this board?

yeah, some of them.

are you gonna deny that in an area where the average home sells for well over 200K, there aren't more dual income households compared to an area where similar houses may see for 100K give or take a few thousand?

Just feel free to link up some stats to back up up your fantasy bullshit, you painfully stupid fucking retard.