Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Did any of you South Carolinians actually look at the Demint Amendment?

33 posts in this topic

Posted

shut up you child

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

after giving this some thought I've come to the conclusion that it's really impossible to answer. It's just too broad.

I thought about going into the historical history of corporations and how they've traditionally been platforms of untold pain and suffering, and that these very same ones that people seem so dependent on for work would ship their job to another country at a moments' notice, and that if you try to restrict that then you're actually restricting the point of a corporation, but it's really just too hard.

the people that speak loudest for them are the people that are hurt most by them, so you can't really go into an intelligent discussion about this without a serious amount of background information, and this really isn't the place to discuss labor theory of value or the destruction wrought by neoliberal policies around the world.

Fair enough. But most of the 700+ companies I deal with in my association that are based in America would like to keep jobs here domestically. But government has taxed them out of profitability, union wages have played a large role in some decisions, health care costs have played a large role in others.

Tangent- And a large number of Americans are not willing to work for their money to be honest with you. You'd be amazed, especially here in the south, how much difficulty some of my customers have in hiring and keeping a lift truck driver employed for more than two weeks.

If an American company could successfully produce a widget in America and achieve the same profit, why wouldn't they? We should help them bring jobs back to America and create new jobs in America. I'm not sure if this stimulus package will achieve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fair enough. But most of the 700+ companies I deal with in my association that are based in America would like to keep jobs here domestically.

of course they would, but in essence, they're saying that they would prefer for the american worker to work for as little as they do in other parts of the world, not expect any job protection, and be alright with hired goons keeping them from organizing.

that would never happen here.

so when corporations say "oh gosh we'd love to work here" realize what they're actually saying. corporations have zero obligations to this country; all of their obligation goes to their shareholders. people are very naive to think that their work value is somehow important to them for patriotic reasons.

But government has taxed them out of profitability, union wages have played a large role in some decisions, health care costs have played a large role in others.

these are things that have developed over the centuries in the western world to protect workers from their employers.

i'm constantly amazed that western workers want to strip away their own rights that those who came before them worked and died for, just so a bunch of people at the top can get a bigger percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fiz,

I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fiz,

I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.

And some of the companies, I understand, who got bailout money have eliminated tens of thousands of white collar jobs as a requirement for getting that money ... they can't, though, eliminate the union jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fiz,

I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.

just because there are bad unions doesn't mean the entire concept needs to be junked. The uaw wouldn't be an issue if companies like gm were operating with a viable business model, or were actually making a product worth buying. As bloated as the uaw might be, that doesn't change the fact marketing departments have been runnng those companies for years and have run it into he ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

just because there are bad unions doesn't mean the entire concept needs to be junked. The uaw wouldn't be an issue if companies like gm were operating with a viable business model, or were actually making a product worth buying. As bloated as the uaw might be, that doesn't change the fact marketing departments have been runnng those companies for years and have run it into he ground.

Well by that logic, just because there are bad corporations doesn't mean there should be a union concept.

I'm really on the fence about labor unions. I see the need for them, but I see how they can really hurt a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well by that logic, just because there are bad corporations doesn't mean there should be a union concept.

I'm really on the fence about labor unions. I see the need for them, but I see how they can really hurt a business.

what in the world is a union concept

also corporations have a far worse record than unionized labor. why, just this week!

The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing.

The fight over the provision is highlighting the tensions behind President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the health-care system. The administration hopes to expand coverage while limiting use of treatments that don't work well, but any efforts that might reduce coverage are politically sensitive.

The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive "will no longer be prescribed."

in the words of Paul Krugman

Because freedom is all about laying out vast sums on medical treatments without knowing whether they’re actually doing any good.

Remember this the next time someone talks about “entitlement reform” (which will probably happen in the next three seconds or so.) Health care costs are the main reason long-term fiscal projections look so scary — and here we have corporate interest trying to prevent us, not from trying to spend our health dollar more wisely, but from even trying to find out what we get for the health care dollar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what in the world is a union concept

also corporations have a far worse record than unionized labor. why, just this week!

in the words of Paul Krugman

Cmon now, it's obvious I mistyped. :rolleyes:

You used faulty logic to defend unions and failed to even address the question.

You don't need to convince me that corporations have bad track record. I'm not an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cmon now, it's obvious I mistyped. :rolleyes:

You used faulty logic to defend unions and failed to even address the question.

You don't need to convince me that corporations have bad track record. I'm not an idiot.

that wasn't faulty logic. it was a specific response to criticisms of unions by way of the UAW, and the automotive industry in general.

i think the UAW is an awful union, but the problems with the automakers are far ranging, and it's unfair to blame their fall on the UAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Fiz,

I agree that when they were established, unions served a needed purpose. But do you really think that some of these workers should be paid what they are to do BS sinecure type jobs because they can't be let go per the union? How does that actually help company growth? In fact some of the unions' requirements (auto, I am speaking of) have in part led to the companies' need for taxpayer bailouts.

That was the question.

just because there are bad unions doesn't mean the entire concept needs to be junked. The uaw wouldn't be an issue if companies like gm were operating with a viable business model, or were actually making a product worth buying. As bloated as the uaw might be, that doesn't change the fact marketing departments have been runnng those companies for years and have run it into he ground.

Your answer - just because one union is bad doesn't mean they all are. I brought up the fact that if you use that logic then - just because one corporation is bad doesn't mean they all are. You then go on about other things that caused the auto industry failure, but don't address the question that the uaw, in part, had to do with it. That is a logical fallacy referred to as red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

and i think arguing over employee pay is a red herring which disguises the real issue.

I've never built a car. i don't know what goes into it or what it takes, so I don't know if they're being overpaid.

are they being overpaid in comparison to what people in another country without any laws protecting workers would get paid? yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites