That's true here as well, Organized Crime got involved in the Unions for a while and it's pretty much one of the reasons Unions are in decline today. See Jimmy Hoffa regardless, the teamsters are generally a clean organization now.
I've heard of that - don't know a huge amount about it, just the broader overview. However - mightily unfortunately - because of the Labor government/political party's close ties to the unions, for the most part, they're less powerful, but hardly in decline - and apparently, are only barely less criminal than they used to be. A mate of mine went out of business, because he essentially got his workers to avoid the unions, by treating them better than the unions outlined, and then if one of them joined the union, giving them only exactly what the unions demanded - a trick he picked up from another mutual friend - and so, after he told the union that, and his workers told the union to piss off a few too many times(this had gone on for about three years) his equipment shed and office were put to the torch in the same night.
EDIT - that said, the unions down here are also a pretty powerful force for good - the problem is that there are some cancerous, rotting parts of them that need to be excised, but are unfortunately unlikely to be.
On empty Big Box stores:they still haven't been able to replace the Circuit City that went under almost two-and-a-half years ago at the mall I work at. Which is attached to Gillete Stadium, and is probably some of the more prime suburban retail space.
Really? Nobody wants a store attached to the stadium? You know what I would put in there? A Dave & Busters. Tons of people would be hanging out and reserving pre/post-game private parties.
That's a pretty good idea. The only reasons I can think of it not working are 1) They might think it's too close to the one in the Providence Place Mall (20-30 minutes away), and 2) The traffic flow gets a little fucked up on game days, and most people avoid the area unless they have tickets.
On empty Big Box stores:they still haven't been able to replace the Circuit City that went under almost two-and-a-half years ago at the mall I work at. Which is attached to Gillete Stadium, and is probably some of the more prime suburban retail space.
Really? Nobody wants a store attached to the stadium? You know what I would put in there? A Dave & Busters. Tons of people would be hanging out and reserving pre/post-game private parties.
That's a pretty good idea. The only reasons I can think of it not working are 1) They might think it's too close to the one in the Providence Place Mall (20-30 minutes away), and 2) The traffic flow gets a little fucked up on game days, and most people avoid the area unless they have tickets.
Didn't know you worked so close to where I live (I'm over in Wrentham). Didn't that Circuit City used to be a lacrosse store for a while after CC went belly-up? Spirit Halloween also rents it out on occasion, but that's just seasonal. I'm not sure what would be a good fit there to replace CC, however.
But seriously, I think the reason that unions in the UK are a lot less corrupt is because a large section of them are dedicated socialists and are not in the union for better prospects but to support the socialist cause. The unions in the UK still draw a huge amount of support in the middle class (or to Americans, the upper middle class) because of their affiliation with the New Labour movement and many professionals (such as my father who is a member of Prospect, who is a skilled technology professional but is still unionised) are unionised Also a more liberal media in the UK means that less of the union lies are spread around. Unions still try and pull of crazy shit with strikes, try travelling on the London Underground, but they are nothing like the French unions, who practically strike very week. Did you know that French union workers still get paid when they are on strikes.
Didn't that Circuit City used to be a lacrosse store for a while after CC went belly-up? Spirit Halloween also rents it out on occasion, but that's just seasonal. I'm not sure what would be a good fit there to replace CC, however.
Yes on both accounts. It's been pretty consistantly empty other than that.
Unions have a purpose in that it gives individual workers who have no power to the ability to deal with other individuals or organizations that have great power on relatively equal footing. Unions don't win concessions because they are right and good, they get them because they collectively combine to form a gun that can be pointed at the the heads of owners.
The problems happen once a union becomes powerful, thus becoming attractive to power hungry dickheads.
I honestly can't think of a way to fix this; if the unions are not worth corrupting then they don't work and if they are worth corrupting then they'll end up damaging the quality of what the union members create and/or do.
I guess one solution would be profit sharing and collective ownership of the means of production as a path for workers to better their lot without having to create corruptible power structures but there is the phobia of the demon socialism and its threat to the "interests" (aka the owners) of society at large. This, of course, does not solve the problem for areas that are not profit driven like health care, education etc.
Been a little bit behind on listening to these, however, it seems we have another blockbuster situation going on with Borders - Boarders Australia is going into administrative restructuring, however, it's voluntary, and pretty much because American Borders is right buggered. Business continues as normal, and in fact, they're doing reasonably well.
On an oddly related note, found this today: The Sixth Yamaguchi-gumi (å…代目山å£çµ„ Rokudaime Yamaguchi-gumi?) is Japan's largest and most infamous yakuza organization. It is named after its founder Harukichi Yamaguchi. Its origins can be traced back to a loose labor union for dockworkers in Kobe pre-WWII.[2]
Pretty much every organized criminal syndicate begins with powerless lower class people with little social mobility banding together for protection and power.
Unicorns Unions fill a very necessary role in empowering workers to make certain demands in regard to workplace conditions. However, there are two subjects where the power of unions should be more limited than it is.
First is tenure. Rym's point about booting teachers for researching unfavorable topics is valid, but I don't care what you're researching if your students aren't learning. If your students aren't learning, schools should have every right to fire you. If you're trying new teaching techniques, then limit the number and extent of the new things, so students don't lose half a year's worth of learning if they don't work. If they do work, build on them next year, but build little by little. Furthermore, tenure arbitrarily increases the barrier to entry. I might be able to do a particular job better than another worker, but because they've been working in the industry for longer, I get turned away. This is just downright inefficient.
Second, unions should have less power over wages. In certain industries, it makes sense to push employers to provide benefits. Of course, if they don't have the power to prevent wage cuts equal to the cost of health care, this makes no sense. So, some power over wages is necessary. However, I've read, from various sources, that one of the teachers unions (I forget which one) actually prevents schools from rewarding teachers who perform well (probably by requiring that if one teacher gets a bonus they all get the bonus, but the source was non-specific in this regard. And unfortunately I don't remember the source, but it may have been The Economist or possibly an NPR Planet Money podcast). If this is true, this also makes no sense and unions should not be able to do this. Outside of the case where workers need to bargain for benefits without losing wages, the union power to demand increases in wages disrupts the workforce economy. When a job pays well, there are naturally more people looking to fill that position. When a job pays poorly, people look elsewhere. There are limitations to this principle in that if there's nowhere else to look than people will take the poor paying jobs (another very suitable time for unions to get involved). However, provided that people can find opportunities elsewhere, the wage of a job will rise or fall to meet the demand for workers of reasonably equivalent skill. When a union artificially increases the wage for a particular type of job, an economic bubble is created, and we all saw how well that worked out in the housing industry.
I'm sorry for bumping, but I was thinking about this as I'm listening to the episode again.
What's to stop an MTA employee from utterly abusing their power (within legal limits of course, such as it is when even touching the guy is an apparently near automatic seven year offence) besides the threat of getting the HP walloped out of them off the clock? It strikes me as a system that could very easily to go the way of the Soup Nazi
What's to stop an MTA employee from utterly abusing their power (within legal limits of course, such as it is when even touching the guy is an apparently near automatic seven year offence) besides the threat of getting the HP walloped out of them off the clock? It strikes me as a system that could very easily to go the way of the Soup Nazi
What power are they going to abuse? The only protection they have is that if you assault them while on the job the sentence is steeper than if you assault any random person on the street. Whether it's the bus, subway, or train there are very explicit procedures, protocols, and policies for all of those MTA employees. For the most part they all follow them to the letter. If they don't, it's their ass that's on the line.
What's to stop an MTA employee from utterly abusing their power (within legal limits of course, such as it is when even touching the guy is an apparently near automatic seven year offence) besides the threat of getting the HP walloped out of them off the clock? It strikes me as a system that could very easily to go the way of the Soup Nazi
What power are they going to abuse? The only protection they have is that if you assault them while on the job the sentence is steeper than if you assault any random person on the street. Whether it's the bus, subway, or train there are very explicit procedures, protocols, and policies for all of those MTA employees. For the most part they all follow them to the letter. If they don't, it's their ass that's on the line.
So pushing a guy out of a train and telling them to "Get the fuck out" is acceptable MTA Policy?
So pushing a guy out of a train and telling them to "Get the fuck out" is acceptable MTA Policy?
If they're being disruptive or otherwise violating the MTA rules? Sure. Everyone I've ever seen get into an argument or altercation with an MTA employee deserved their treatment, and there are so many witnesses in almost all cases that it would be difficult for them to really abuse their few powers.
Not entirely about unions, I thought I should address the comments talking about teachers with
3/4 working year
My mom was a high school teacher. She typically had a 9 hour working day with 15 minute lunch "at the office." She came home and graded papers the rest of the night nearly every weeknight, and lost an entire day every other weekend to grading and other administrative duties of being a teacher. So we're talking 60 hour working weeks minimum. Under the assumption of a 40 hour work week, teachers work shit tons of overtime for which I'd say summer off is the compensation. 60 hours a week * 3/4 a year = 45 hours a week average over the entire year. It's just concentrated differently. Then again, over 40 hours a week is becoming the norm for everybody these days.
Note also that many teachers have to pay for any and all supplies for the classroom (including simple paper) from their own pockets because the school administration don't fund classrooms adequately.
I'd say that teacher unions, while both good and bad for all the reasons already noted, ain't got nothin on school administrators. Those people are seriously fucked up, leech money from teachers and students, and have little to no accountability. The fact that so much has been said of teachers with little to no mention of administration backs up the last thought, although maybe those comments are off topic.
I'd say that teacher unions, while both good and bad for all the reasons already noted, ain't got nothin on school administrators. Those people are seriously fucked up, leech money from teachers and students, and have little to no accountability. The fact that so much has been said of teachers with little to no mention of administration backs up the last thought, although maybe those comments are off topic.
Ain't that the truth, I've seen School boards cut teachers salaries and benefits and give the administration staff bonuses... It's crazy.
My grandfather was a union plumber for most of his adult life, and in a recent conversation we both realized something that made our jobs rather different. At any given time, I could go to another job and the compensation and the quality of the job change. In his case, every plumbing company in the state was unionized, and his compensation would stay approximately the same across the board. So his only focus would be on finding the highest "quality" place to work. Whereas in my position, I have the option to work a terrible job because it pays better, or a great job because it pays worse. I'm not sure one or the other system is better inherently based on that... but it did make me think about some things.
I can't say I am in favor of the Wisconsin unions (I know I am in the heartless minority here), but I have the utmost respect for their methods. When people are fed up with politics, they usually piss and moan but do nothing to effect change. Here, they're stepping up and getting recall elections going. I support this type of thing, and if the Republicans are booted, I'll be happy just to know that the majority of people are getting their way and that democracy is working as it should. This is the same ground on which I'm always saying we should be pushing amendments to the constitution to settle some of our more contentious issues.
On another topic, does anyone have solid references regarding the affect of unions on the cost of running a convention? I'm assisting in planning a medium to large sized con for 2013, and the organizers were considering NYC and some other major cities. The cost to actually run the con will be a big factor, and I know NYC is notoriously expensive due to the union-related costs.
I can't say I am in favor of the Wisconsin unions (I know I am in the heartless minority here), but I have the utmost respect for their methods. When people are fed up with politics, they usually piss and moan but do nothing to effect change. Here, they're stepping up and getting recall elections going. I support this type of thing, and if the Republicans are booted, I'll be happy just to know that the majority of people are getting their way and that democracy is working as it should. This is the same ground on which I'm always saying we should be pushing amendments to the constitution to settle some of our more contentious issues.
I agree. I'm not a fan of most of the unions I've encountered - Christ, the unions down here give you enough reason to - but they're behaving in an entirely reasonable seeming fashion, and they're not being assholes, which is definitely a method of creating change that I support.
On another topic, does anyone have solid references regarding the affect of unions on the cost of running a convention? I'm assisting in planning a medium to large sized con for 2013, and the organizers were considering NYC and some other major cities. The cost to actually run the con will be a big factor, and I know NYC is notoriously expensive due to the union-related costs.
Heh, I'm pretty pro-union myself, but the convention I'm associated with won't touch the Philly Convention center with a ten foot pole because it has 6 different unions all with different rules... I'm cool with dealing with one union for an event but there is no way we can deal with 6....
On another topic, does anyone have solid references regarding the affect of unions on the cost of running a convention? I'm assisting in planning a medium to large sized con for 2013, and the organizers were considering NYC and some other major cities. The cost to actually run the con will be a big factor, and I know NYC is notoriously expensive due to the union-related costs.
Heh, I'm pretty pro-union myself, but the convention I'm associated with won't touch the Philly Convention center with a ten foot pole because it has 6 different unions all with different rules... I'm cool with dealing with one union for an event but there is no way we can deal with 6....
Imagine if they got 6 different giant inflatable rats outside of your event. Do you think they would compete with each other over who had the most impressive of rats?
On another topic, does anyone have solid references regarding the affect of unions on the cost of running a convention? I'm assisting in planning a medium to large sized con for 2013, and the organizers were considering NYC and some other major cities. The cost to actually run the con will be a big factor, and I know NYC is notoriously expensive due to the union-related costs.
Heh, I'm pretty pro-union myself, but the convention I'm associated with won't touch the Philly Convention center with a ten foot pole because it has 6 different unions all with different rules... I'm cool with dealing with one union for an event but there is no way we can deal with 6....
Imagine if they got 6 different giant inflatable rats outside of your event. Do you think they would compete with each other over who had the most impressive of rats?
Man, fuck those rats. I want to start carrying a tactical pen so I can covertly shank those ugly fucking things.
So what do you guys think about the Verizon strike. A company that has had record profits over the last few years is trying to get it's workers to pay more for healthcare. Do we think it's fair to cut benefits for employee's while a company is making money hand over fist? is this a "that's capitalism" moment or should we support these actions of corporations doing anything to get a buck?
Currently the Verizon workers pay nothing into their health plan which is rarer in this day in age, however with the company so profitable is it just to cut benefits?
Currently the Verizon workers pay nothing into their health plan which is rarer in this day in age, however with the company so profitable is it just to cut benefits?
I don't believe it's just, especially since the benefit cuts don't affect everyone in the company equally across the board. I doubt the executives at Verizon are getting any sorts of pay/benefit cuts, after all.
Comments
EDIT - that said, the unions down here are also a pretty powerful force for good - the problem is that there are some cancerous, rotting parts of them that need to be excised, but are unfortunately unlikely to be.
But seriously, I think the reason that unions in the UK are a lot less corrupt is because a large section of them are dedicated socialists and are not in the union for better prospects but to support the socialist cause. The unions in the UK still draw a huge amount of support in the middle class (or to Americans, the upper middle class) because of their affiliation with the New Labour movement and many professionals (such as my father who is a member of Prospect, who is a skilled technology professional but is still unionised) are unionised Also a more liberal media in the UK means that less of the union lies are spread around. Unions still try and pull of crazy shit with strikes, try travelling on the London Underground, but they are nothing like the French unions, who practically strike very week. Did you know that French union workers still get paid when they are on strikes.
The problems happen once a union becomes powerful, thus becoming attractive to power hungry dickheads.
I honestly can't think of a way to fix this; if the unions are not worth corrupting then they don't work and if they are worth corrupting then they'll end up damaging the quality of what the union members create and/or do.
I guess one solution would be profit sharing and collective ownership of the means of production as a path for workers to better their lot without having to create corruptible power structures but there is the phobia of the demon socialism and its threat to the "interests" (aka the owners) of society at large. This, of course, does not solve the problem for areas that are not profit driven like health care, education etc.
as for Scott's Thing of the Day
It is a movie poster for The Prestige
Think about it.
The Sixth Yamaguchi-gumi (å…代目山å£çµ„ Rokudaime Yamaguchi-gumi?) is Japan's largest and most infamous yakuza organization. It is named after its founder Harukichi Yamaguchi. Its origins can be traced back to a loose labor union for dockworkers in Kobe pre-WWII.[2]
First is tenure. Rym's point about booting teachers for researching unfavorable topics is valid, but I don't care what you're researching if your students aren't learning. If your students aren't learning, schools should have every right to fire you. If you're trying new teaching techniques, then limit the number and extent of the new things, so students don't lose half a year's worth of learning if they don't work. If they do work, build on them next year, but build little by little. Furthermore, tenure arbitrarily increases the barrier to entry. I might be able to do a particular job better than another worker, but because they've been working in the industry for longer, I get turned away. This is just downright inefficient.
Second, unions should have less power over wages. In certain industries, it makes sense to push employers to provide benefits. Of course, if they don't have the power to prevent wage cuts equal to the cost of health care, this makes no sense. So, some power over wages is necessary. However, I've read, from various sources, that one of the teachers unions (I forget which one) actually prevents schools from rewarding teachers who perform well (probably by requiring that if one teacher gets a bonus they all get the bonus, but the source was non-specific in this regard. And unfortunately I don't remember the source, but it may have been The Economist or possibly an NPR Planet Money podcast). If this is true, this also makes no sense and unions should not be able to do this. Outside of the case where workers need to bargain for benefits without losing wages, the union power to demand increases in wages disrupts the workforce economy. When a job pays well, there are naturally more people looking to fill that position. When a job pays poorly, people look elsewhere. There are limitations to this principle in that if there's nowhere else to look than people will take the poor paying jobs (another very suitable time for unions to get involved). However, provided that people can find opportunities elsewhere, the wage of a job will rise or fall to meet the demand for workers of reasonably equivalent skill. When a union artificially increases the wage for a particular type of job, an economic bubble is created, and we all saw how well that worked out in the housing industry.
What's to stop an MTA employee from utterly abusing their power (within legal limits of course, such as it is when even touching the guy is an apparently near automatic seven year offence) besides the threat of getting the HP walloped out of them off the clock? It strikes me as a system that could very easily to go the way of the Soup Nazi
Note also that many teachers have to pay for any and all supplies for the classroom (including simple paper) from their own pockets because the school administration don't fund classrooms adequately.
I'd say that teacher unions, while both good and bad for all the reasons already noted, ain't got nothin on school administrators. Those people are seriously fucked up, leech money from teachers and students, and have little to no accountability. The fact that so much has been said of teachers with little to no mention of administration backs up the last thought, although maybe those comments are off topic.
On another topic, does anyone have solid references regarding the affect of unions on the cost of running a convention? I'm assisting in planning a medium to large sized con for 2013, and the organizers were considering NYC and some other major cities. The cost to actually run the con will be a big factor, and I know NYC is notoriously expensive due to the union-related costs.
Currently the Verizon workers pay nothing into their health plan which is rarer in this day in age, however with the company so profitable is it just to cut benefits?