As I read this editorial, I couldn't help but look fondly back on this ad from my childhood:
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
What scares the heck out of me is the positive feedback loop. Sure, you have the implied threat -- join a union, or else. But once you join the union, a portion of your paycheck is effectively withheld and sent to the political party in power. Which then has more power to threaten more folks to join the union, etc., until we're all union members donating money to the Democrats.
Say what you want about Cheney-burton, etc. They never had an payroll deduction that funneled cash -- cash outside the purview of any spending limits -- to their party's coffers.
And what's worse, they want to end the secret ballot - the hallmark of a democratic society.
They want to know how you voted - so they can extract retribution if you don't vote "the right way."
They're sick with power, and we must destroy them all before it's too late. Before they've stolen our country.
This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen.
"This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen."
Your powers of debate and command of the facts is stunning sir. I salute you.
By that standard, the United States wasn't a democractic society until the 1880s...
Plus we had slavery till the 1860s. Hopefully we're not bringing that one back too.
I would be in favor of the Roman Coliseum approach - the thumbs up or down - and then set the lions and tigers loose on the Senators and Congress Critters who lose the plebiscite ;->
On further reflection, I think I would want to let the lions and tigers loose on the Senators and Congress Critters who Won the plebiscite as well :-)
And what's worse, they want to end the secret ballot - the hallmark of a democratic society.
Proof? You don't have any because it is not true. Stop watching Glenn Beck reruns all day.
Do you have some definition of card check that doesn't call for ending the secret ballot in union elections?
Do you have some definition of card check that doesn't call for ending the secret ballot in union elections?
No, he doesn't.
Wikipedia on Card Check:
Card check (also called majority sign-up) is a method for employees to organize into a labor union in which a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign public authorization forms, or "cards," stating they wish to be represented by the union.
The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace in the United States is a sign-up then an election process. In that, a petition or an authorization card with the signatures of at least 30% of the employees requesting a union is submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who then verifies and orders a secret ballot election.
Card check would end the secret ballot election.
Didn't Boehner hand out checks from tobacco companies right there on the floor of the House? But at least that's out in the open. How many checks are handed out to our representatives in private? More than just union money gets doled out to be sure.
It was a fun ad. You really do want to line those people up and ask, "So... how did that International Garment Worker thing work out for you?"
Unions aren't the only reason that manufacturing has become so relatively rare in the USA, but they certainly are a major factor.
If you want to know how stupid unions are, look no further than Ford Motor Company ... whose union has unilaterally rejected its contract offer.
At a time when all the other car companies are bankrupt, they're trying to kill the last Golden Goose.
They're morons.
The union knows that FMC is the only auto company not in bankruptcy and actually making a profit, and that the government will backstop its bankruptcy if it does happen, so it knows there's room to push yet.
Ford made a deal to give their employees fringes, and if they wanna welch on it they gotta get it through negotiation.
The union knows that FMC is the only auto company not in bankruptcy and actually making a profit ..."
Otherwise known as securing those workers' futures. And yet the UAW, same union that killed GM and Chrysler, is now out to destroy Ford also.
I hope they succeed. I really, really do. The end of the American car companies and the elimination of those hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of scumbags.
Yeah, it certainly had nothing to do with the pennies per hour paid in the developing world. It's obviously all the ILGWU's fault.
Anyone remember the SNL spoof of this ad? Same song, but the union was "Marijuana Growers of America," or something like that.
That's back when SNL was still funny...
Actually, it's kinda sad - at least if you're an American.
There was a brief period for about 25 years after WWII when someone with a middle-school education and a strong back could get what was considered an excellent job with solid benefits. A whole world grew up around that assumption, including such things as high-tax, high-service local governments, an expectation of defined-benefit pensions with early retirement ages, etc.
This situation existed because most of the rest of the world was either destroyed by WWII or run by - pre-Deng Xiaoping - Communists, so we had the luxury of being the only place in the world with a non-destroyed economy. By the mid 1970s, that world was disappearing, and by 1990, it was completely gone, although its echoes still linger.
Now, the world is in full-competition mode, and middle-schoolers with strong backs compete directly with similarly skilled people across the planet. As does everyone else, which is generally a good thing globally but not if you previously enjoyed - or at least remember - a better local situation.
Even though I'm otherwise a libertarian, I can't help but wonder if some sort of expanded EITC-style payment isn't justified, so people with such skillsets can compete globally while being able to live at something beyond a Bangladeshi lifestyle. I'd rather do this, while getting rid of employer-side restrictions (including laws that entrench unions), and the alphabet soup of "help the poor" bureaucracies.
When people mention this, I've gotta wonder at the other things that may have contributed to the alleged "golden age" of labor.
Silly stuff, like half the workforce being excluded from jobs that weren't nanny, nurse, school teacher, waitress, or homemaker. Or maybe a significant percentage of the workforce excluded due to the color of their skin.
"while being able to live at something beyond a Bangladeshi lifestyle"
I agreed with you through most of what you said, but Bangladeshi? Even those living in poverty in the US still have it pretty good materially by global standards, with power, heat, color TVs, etc. They don't always have safety - it's a disgrace that so many poor people in the US have to worry about drive-by shootings, etc. But their material lifestyle is still well above that in much of the world.
I'm not saying that things here couldn't be better, but we need to keep some perspective. It doesn't seem fair to people living in 'true' poverty around the world for us to pretend that all countries have something close to what we have.
You nailed it with the safety issue. No amount of color TVs or cell phones can improve a life where you wonder if this is the night your home will be invaded by some thug bent on causing destruction to you and your family. Might as well be Bangladeshi.
"There was a brief period for about 25 years after WWII when someone with a middle-school education and a strong back could get what was considered an excellent job with solid benefits."
You're falling victim to nostalgia.
I'm not going to bother doing your research for you -- but go look at the standard of living for a family of four in post-WW2 USA. Sure, it was higher than the rest of the world, but only a small fraction experienced what the 50th percentile does today.
Proof please. I'd really like to take a look at living conditions of a typical lower middle class family of 4 in 1950 and 2009. I wouldn't be shocked if there is no improvement in 59 years thanks to the wonders of international trade.
This isn't even vaguely contested. Air conditioning, clothes, health care (state of the art treatment for a heart attack in 1950 was painkillers and bed rest), year-round fresh produce . . . we live in marvelous times.
Burden of proof oughta be on the one that suggested that times were oh-so-great in the past.
It shouldn't be up to me to refute when I could have simply said "proof please."
But here's a start for you:
http://cafehayek.com/2006/01/working_for_sea.html
"Sears’ lowest-priced 10-inch table saw: 52.35 hours of work required in 1975; 7.34 hours of work required in 2006.
Sears’ lowest-priced gasoline-powered lawn mower: 13.14 hours of work required in 1975 (to buy a lawn-mower that cuts a 20-inch swathe); 8.56 hours of work required in 2006 (to buy a lawn-mower that cuts a 22-inch swathe. Sears no longer sells a power mower that cuts a swathe smaller than 22 inches.)
Sears Best freezer: 79 hours of work required in 1975 (to buy a freezer with 22.3 cubic feet of storage capacity); 39.77 hours of work required in 2006 (to buy a freezer with 24.9 cubic feet of storage capacity; this size freezer is the closest size available today to that of Sears Best in 1975.)
Sears Best side-by-side fridge-freezer: 139.62 hours of work required in 1975 (to buy a fridge with 22.1 cubic feet of storage capacity); 79.56 hours of work required in 2006 (to buy a comparable fridge with 22.0 cubic feet of storage capacity.)
Sears’ lowest-priced answering machine: 20.43 hours of work required in 1975; 1.1 hours of work required in 2006.
A ½-horsepower garbage disposer: 20.52 hours of work required in 1975; 4.59 hours of work required in 2006."
More:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/spending-on-food-at-all-time-historical.html
Spending on food has dropped from 24% of income in 1950 to 9% today.
There's a reason they got excited about roast beef on Sundays on Leave it to Beaver. They could only afford it once per week.
For better or worse, people tend to do relative comparisons and not absolute ones. I'm not old enough to have a lot of personal memories of those days, but one thing that those old environments did provide was a sense of security.
It was obviously bogus as "real" security goes, but it existed and remains in memory, meaning that politicians who promise to "bring it back" by doing this and that are listened to.
we live in marvelous times.
Indeed. Drew Carey has a great video on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvuHREm5jg
There's a reason they got excited about roast beef on Sundays on Leave it to Beaver. They could only afford it once per week.
Just amazing how different things are now.
Those old environments provided a sense of security in the sense that the past always looks more secure than the present. There were a lot of very insecure people--those cushy jobs for life were a minority of jobs even at their peak. My grandfather owned a gas station and worried himself into a tizzy frequently right through the fabulous fifties and the serene sixties. Blacks, latinos, many women, etc were all economically insecure.
"The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!"
One of the greatest episodes ever!
"This is your chance to get a fair shake for the working man."
"And make life-long connections to the world of organized crime. Mmm... organized crime."
"Oh, man. I have to go to the bathroom. Why did I have all that beer and coffee and watermelon?"
"I know what you're thinking. I want to take the pressure off. Now, it doesn't take a 'whiz' to know that you're looking out for 'Number One'. Well, listen to me, and you'll make a big splash very soon."
"Where's the bathroom"
"23rd door on the left..... Did you find the bathroom ok?"
"Ummmm........ yeah...."
"Sorry, but I don't go in for these backdoor shenanigans. Sure, I'm flattered, maybe even a little curious, but the answer is no. "
Also-
Homer: Does this union boss job pay anything?
Carl: No.
Homer: D'oh!
Carl: Unless you're crooked.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
Or something like that.
It doesn't matter. Ultimately the unions will lose because capital is global and it doesn't care about union slogans and demands for collective bargaining.
Look at what just happened with Boeing and its decision to start a second 787 line in South Carolina. The writing is on the wall for everyone to see: Boeing is eventually going to leave Washington state and move its manufacturing south. Why? Because it's sick of dealing with the IAM and organized labor. They're sick of work stoppages and opportunistic strikes that harm Boeing in the world markets. Last year the IAM went on a completely unnecessary strike for two months. Why? Because the economy was in the tank, Boeing was behind on the 787, and the union figured that they could squeeze some blood from the corporation while its back was against the wall. Too bad, they won the battle and lost the war, killed the golden goose, and in 20-30 years Seattle will look like Detroit.
The next step for Barry and his thugs is to go after safe havens for capital like Singapore. Perhaps he will direct our occupation armies there. He will ensure that capitalism is not safe anywhere.
I remember in the late 1980s, there were ads asking you to buy clothes or products with the "Made in the USA" label. People in the ad said, "You better believe it matters to me."
I also remember a long ad on FOX touting its programming. Actor Ed O'Neill, who played Al Bundy on its hit "Married With Children," opened his suit jacket to reveal a "FOX" label. He smiles and says, "You better believe it matters to me."
Well, isn't that old commercial nice. It really takes me back.
Meanwhile, Philadelphia's transit workers walked out after a strike was called by Local 234 of the Transport Workers Union. No alternative mass transit for the city's commuters, who have to walk, take cabs or bike. A previous strike in 2005 lasted 7 days and one in 1998 lasted 40 days.
Megan, sure, things weren't perfect, and I didn't say they were. And if you were Chinese or Indian, ye olden days were far nastier than today. But even there, a surprising number of Chinese are nostalgic for the Maoist "olden days" when everyone was - apparently - similarly poor and bad things largely happened to Other People.
One irony of our more affluent time is if you screw up financially, you have far further to fall, and it's a lot easier to screw up financially simply because you have more to lose. Skilled jobs pay a lot more, but are a lot harder to transfer out of if your skill suddenly becomes obsolete.
We've come a lot closer to achieving the competitive ideal, where you basically trade certainty for wealth, and we've got it: a much richer, but much more volatile society.
Thanks for the memory Megan. My father was in labor relations and he used to sing this song around the house in jest. He especially liked the line "yes, we work hard, but who's complaining?"
It reminds me of this classic AFSCME spot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mw49mk_x0