• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Will radical Supreme Court destroy unions?

SkinsNDeacs said:
On a forum like this or when people debate it comes up but legislatively it is hardly ever an issue. Most of the Union v Republican legislative fights have centered around public unions.
Click to expand...

True, but that's driven equal parts by disdain for government and disdain for unions. Of course, with teachers unions, it's a disdain for public education.
 
PhDeac said:
True, but that's driven equal parts by disdain for government and disdain for unions. Of course, with teachers unions, it's a disdain for public education.
Click to expand...

That is a fairly simplistic way of viewing things. Could it also be driven by the fact that state and local governments are going bankrupt because of terrible contracts with public union. Those contracts were negotiated between unions and people that are funded by unions?
 
That's a simplistic way of looking at things. There are plenty of reasons why state and local governments are going bankrupt. Does that justify taking away the basic right to organize on one's behalf? Replace unions and private contractors and you'll get answers as well.
 
PhDeac said:
That's a simplistic way of looking at things. There are plenty of reasons why state and local governments are going bankrupt. Does that justify taking away the basic right to organize on one's behalf? Replace unions and private contractors and you'll get answers as well.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt there are a lot of reasons state and local governments are going bankrupt but at the top (or near the top) of the list is pension payout. That is one of the things both Republicans and Democrats agree on. There are definitely varying degrees of solutions but to claim that Republicans only want to address the issue because they have "disdain for government" is not being honest.

Not sure I follow the bolded (App grad)...please explain.
 
RJKarl said:
The lowering of the number of union members over the past forty years has directly paralleled the shrinkage of the middle class.
Click to expand...

Unions = in the pool

George-Costanza-Yelling-I-Was-in-the-Pool-Seinfeld.gif
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Less than 7% of the private workforce is unionized. I doubt anything done to unions is going to bring on the Draconian change that you are predicting.
Click to expand...

Think it's silly to pretend that conservatives are the only people who disdain unions. If 90% of American workers favored unions they'd be much more prevalent. More people would rather be judged on their individual merit/productivity than their length of employment. Was painfully obvious that Chris Paul was Wake's (if not the ACC's) best player the moment he stepped on the court as a freshman, not some random senior.

In 2007, a year before GM filed for bankruptcy, their legacy pension/healthcare burden per car was $1700, before material costs and labor were even added in. Having 18 year olds who finished last in their high school class join the union at 18, work 30 years, and retire with full benefits at 48 was no longer sustainable. Most private companies phased out fixed retirement benefits in the early '90s because they realized the ongoing liabilities weren't sustainable.

Globalization has more to do with declining incomes than lack of union participation. The cost difference between union Detroit labor and non-union South Carolina or Alabama isn't the problem, it's the difference between Chinese or Malaysian labor and US labor (union or non-union). Two thirds of American GDP is retail spending and Americans aren't willing to pay $1000 for US-made iPods, $5000 for iPads, and $10000 for desktops.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Think it's silly to pretend that conservatives are the only people who disdain unions. If 90% of American workers favored unions they'd be much more prevalent. More people would rather be judged on their individual merit/productivity than their length of employment. Was painfully obvious that Chris Paul was Wake's (if not the ACC's) best player the moment he stepped on the court as a freshman, not some random senior.

In 2007, a year before GM filed for bankruptcy, their legacy pension/healthcare burden per car was $1700, before material costs and labor were even added in. Having 18 year olds who finished last in their high school class join the union at 18, work 30 years, and retire with full benefits at 48 was no longer sustainable. Most private companies phased out fixed retirement benefits in the early '90s because they realized the ongoing liabilities weren't sustainable.

Globalization has more to do with declining incomes than lack of union participation. The cost difference between union Detroit labor and non-union South Carolina or Alabama isn't the problem, it's the difference between Chinese or Malaysian labor and US labor (union or non-union). Two thirds of American GDP is retail spending and Americans aren't willing to pay $1000 for US-made iPods, $5000 for iPads, and $10000 for desktops.
Click to expand...

I find it ironic and hilarious that Rube's sports analogy is about a union president.
 
PhDeac said:
I find it ironic and hilarious that Rube's sports analogy is about a union president.
Click to expand...

Substitute Jabari Parker for Paul and the underlying logic still holds. At least sports and entertainment unions recognize individual merit. Other public and private unions, not so much. If experience is the only factor in effectiveness, why would anyone chose a Wake program over a UNC program in the same academic field?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top