Municipal Politics

[mooky]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Unions definitely had their place at one time, and in some parts of the world can still do good to help the plight of the poor...but in most instances in the western world, have become giant soul-sucking parasites. They value seniority over personal performance and create an environment of laziness and excess. They are inefficient and hostile towards any change (never mind the bullying that goes on within their own membership). Good luck trying to run a city this way.

While your romanticized description of unions sounds lovely, most unions these days are just as greedy as the corporations that employ them. Look at the auto unions....their solution to their industry woes was to institute two-tiered wage structures...one for the old guys (ie the bosses in power) that keep their inflated salaries and benefits, and one for new members who have drastically reduced salaries/benefits, yet might have more experience/education than the guy working right next to them. So much for solidarity. Union bosses are as greedy as management, but just can't admit it.

The last thing municipal politics in Calgary needs to move towards is a union/party model.

My only response is you're generalizing, see ad hominem.

[mooky]

I don't want to help participate in the race to the bottom, which is what happens when you demonize all unions. Yes yes, there are bad unions, I already stipulated that, but there has to be something to the fact that unions have been demonized and marginalized in the USA, their influence neutered, and all the while the gap between the middle working class and the corporate elite widens. Sure its not the only reason, but one could argue that international trade agreements were as much about opening markets to US products as a subtle attempt by US corporations to break unions influence on American manufacturing. Unions used to be as American as apple pie, now they're a damn commie plot.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mooky

I don't want to help participate in the race to the bottom, which is what happens when you demonize all unions.

I'd place a goodly chunk of the blame squarely on unions. When people are making $30-40/hr to bolt cars together (ie: entirely unskilled labour) and they can't be replaced by perfectly qualified workers here who could and would do the job for much less - no wonder so many companies have just said "🞵🞵🞵🞵 it" and moved everything overseas.

Of course, not all unions are bad, but the bad ones are really, really bad. I've watched too many friends and family members lose far more in income (strike pay 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵) than they ever received from precious "collective bargaining".

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Of course, not all unions are bad, but the bad ones are really, really bad. I've watched too many friends and family members lose far more in income (strike pay 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵) than they ever received from precious "collective bargaining".

One of my biggest beefs with unions is that an employee can almost never opt out of them and negotiate their own terms with an employer. If I want to work more hours a week, why can't I? If I'm willing to work for less in return for job-security, why can't I say no to being part of a union?

I tried to get a job at Superstore when I was a teen, and I was told I have to join the union or not be considered at all. Why would a teenager making minimum wage at a part-time job even need a union? At that level if they don't treat you well or you don't like what they pay you, you quit and get another mc-job. I don't need to waste a good chunk of my check for somebody to tell me that. The lack of flexibility with unions is what's killing them. They preach about only wanting an honest and fair living, but as soon as somebody out there tries to earn a fair and honest living outside of their rules, they turn to intimidation and fear-mongering.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'd place a goodly chunk of the blame squarely on unions. When people are making $30-40/hr to bolt cars together (ie: entirely unskilled labour) and they can't be replaced by perfectly qualified workers here who could and would do the job for much less - no wonder so many companies have just said "🞵🞵🞵🞵 it" and moved everything overseas.

Of course, not all unions are bad, but the bad ones are really, really bad. I've watched too many friends and family members lose far more in income (strike pay 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵) than they ever received from precious "collective bargaining".

ad hominem again.

Governments set the rules, and business must abide by it. You don't think corporate lobbies to open up trade barriers, lowering of tariffs, etc, helped them move those manufacturing jobs overseas, without which corporations still would have to employ factory workers here. It is giving rise to the "fair trade, not free trade" movement/ideology to which I am a supporter.

As for unskilled work bolting together cars? I don't know about you, but I don't want my car being bolted together by a Walmart worker where cars fall apart and are a safety hazard to me and my family. Calling it unskilled work is a little disingenuous. If you define it as unskilled work because it isn't as hard today because of technology robots to help automobile workers assemble cars and they don't have to literally break their backs anymore, then how about the people at Boeing that assemble your airplanes? It's basically the same job description. Maybe the automobile industry could survive without unions, I know some manufactures don't use unions, but for that one, there are many industries in North America still treat workers poorly and could use to be unionized. But the downward pressure of making goods cheaper and cheaper is whats actually killing our north American lives at a glacial pace to the average eye - we just see $199.95 for a 62" LCD TV at Walmart and think that's the most awesome thing without thinking about the poor schmuck in Malaysia getting paid $2 a day to assemble it. Do some research of the 3rd party contract companies assembling Microsoft products (mice, webcams, etc) in China, under terrible conditions ... it was in the news several months back .... these are things we would not tolerate here and unions helped abolish, yet we close our eyes to it and happily buy that $15 mouse; societal hypocrisy.

Theirs a lot of factors at play, but to simply attack unions as a whole is entirely unfair. The middle class of North American was and is manufacturing, buttressed by the power of the union to give them the monetary ability to keep the economy going and growing, but with its decline, so has American, and Canada's edge as global engines and leaders. Heck, if you argue technology will replace it, even that we don't lead in any more as China and India are chomping at our heels in that regard.

I say all this because I just see it as short sighted to say unions are dead and have no need any more. I held that belief myself about 10 years ago when I worked for a union, but in doing a lot of reading and studying the subject in the years since, I have done a 180 and seen that unions are very much still needed, just they've been neutered by corporate media bias which affects public opinion, and international trade agreements that make it easy for employers to off shore jobs. And I will again stipulate *some* unions haven't done anything to help themselves either. </rant>

[mooky]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

One of my biggest beefs with unions is that an employee can almost never opt out of them and negotiate their own terms with an employer. If I want to work more hours a week, why can't I? If I'm willing to work for less in return for job-security, why can't I say no to being part of a union?

I tried to get a job at Superstore when I was a teen, and I was told I have to join the union or not be considered at all. Why would a teenager making minimum wage at a part-time job even need a union? At that level if they don't treat you well or you don't like what they pay you, you quit and get another mc-job. I don't need to waste a good chunk of my check for somebody to tell me that. The lack of flexibility with unions is what's killing them. They preach about only wanting an honest and fair living, but as soon as somebody out there tries to earn a fair and honest living outside of their rules, they turn to intimidation and fear-mongering.

Again, an ad hominem.

To working more for less if you want, then, um, whats the point of a minimum wage even cause you could argue that same point against a federal/provincial minimum wage.


As for the need to unionize a mc-job ... well, creating the exception starts a precedent to break the union. How bout Unpaid overtime forced upon Walmart workers with the implied corporate policy that if they can't do it, then Walmart will find someone else who will. It's about balance, I'm not giving unions a cart-blanch, but the anti-union sentiment among my generation (I'm 33) is amazingly short-sited and biased.

Yes, unions need to be more flexible, but corporations still need to be policed, and unfortunately unless you want even more government laws, which I cannot see happening, unions are still a necessary evil until you break/lessen the massive influence of corporate lobbyists on policy. The influence unions exert on policy is in no way equal to the influence corporations exert; the two are not equal and to try to say unions have as much influence on policy or the economy is completely a false perception created on purpose to obfuscate the issue.

[CorporateWhore]

See the thing is that you see unions as the good guy and the corporations as the bad guy. To me they are just different ends of the same 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 stick....neither of them cares about the little guy. Unions start out with good intentions, and then they tend to bloat up to a point where self-preservation becomes the only goal. In the end, they end up being just as corrupt as the entity they were sworn to fight against...all while trying to feed you 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about solidarity and fairness. Is it fair that the UAW has a two-tiered wage system that is based not on merit, but length of current service? Does the tier-two worker, who makes half the salary of the guy next to him, not have to feed his family?

You're right that corporations get out of hand and there needs to be more balance in our world, but bolstering unions no matter the cost is not the answer....they all end up screwing the little guy in the end anyway. I don't trust either them, or any corporation, to look out for me. And honestly, I don't expect them to.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mooky

ad hominem again.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

No one's attacking the message based on the messenger here. My disagreement with unions has nothing whatsoever to do with your character or beliefs. It's purely based on observations of how most unions operate. And at no time will you ever see me say "every single union past and future can never ever be good", so please stop trying to imply that.

Besides, I'm not sure I really want to bother with discussion when you're just going to throw that out at every single comment that goes against your beliefs.

PS: while that could be "ad hominem" if I was using it to actually say "you're wrong" based on your use of the phrase... I'm not. So again, still not ad hominem.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

See the thing is that you see unions as the good guy and the corporations as the bad guy. To me they are just different ends of the same 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 stick....neither of them cares about the little guy. Unions start out with good intentions, and then they tend to bloat up to a point where self-preservation becomes the only goal. In the end, they end up being just as corrupt as the entity they were sworn to fight against...all while trying to feed you 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about solidarity and fairness. Is it fair that the UAW has a two-tiered wage system that is based not on merit, but length of current service? Does the tier-two worker, who makes half the salary of the guy next to him, not have to feed his family?

You're right that corporations get out of hand and there needs to be more balance in our world, but bolstering unions no matter the cost is not the answer....they all end up screwing the little guy in the end anyway. I don't trust either them, or any corporation, to look out for me. And honestly, I don't expect them to.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And this is why discussing unions with pro-union people is generally pointless - they all too often assume that somehow you're defending corporations.

They're both evil. Period. But at least without a union, I'm free to negotiate for myself, and get a better deal based on merit. I know a lot of people claim that that's impossible, but I've done it all my life and it's worked out pretty damned sweet. It helps to be good at what you do.

If unions were optional, I'd be all for them. The fact that me as a worker who can and will negotiate for his own terms based on his own merit is a threat to unions - well, that says everything I need to know.

[gammell]

Ad hominem isn't a fallacy when the moral accusations are relevant to the subject at hand. If one is saying that unions are destructive to society because of corruption and abusive self-interest on the part of the ruling elites within unions, it's not a fallacy to present evidence or arguments along those lines.

People are, at least in part, evil. If you create a monopoly, of either labour or capital, then it is inevitable to see someone come along to abuse that concentration of power for their own ends at the expense of others. As both CorporateWhore and freeweed have indirectly mentioned, unions tend to be very aggressive in creating and protecting their monopolies in the west. These days, I'd say the issue is more pronounced with unions than corporations. There are some exceptions with corporations where functional cartels have been established to protect the status quo of the elites (e.g. the RIAA, MPAA, etc) and in those cases, we're seeing a similar popular backlash as what the unions are experiencing. Related to where this conversation started, I think labour monopolies are especially dangerous in the public sector where there can be excessive convergence with the government (who also hold a monopoly of force). The contrast in garbage collection in Calgary and Toronto (weak vs. strong convergence) is a demonstration of that.

[mooky]

Alright, I concede on the ad hominem abuse...... I was trying to say that since you claim one union is bad they all must.

brain fart.... but the argument still stands.... blargh.



I'm not as pro-union as you make me out to be, but you seem to be anti-union. If they were optional I would be fine with that. If we were without unions all together, we'd still be in the dark ages of workers rights as it concerns blue collar jobs however. If we abolished them, which we as a western society are attempting to do through negative media campaigning and foisting manufacturing off to jurisdictions with lax labor standards, it doesn't speak to a very enlightened social conscience when we still buy said products without at least acknowledging they were made through if not slave, then one step barely above slave labor.

And freeweed, the world in which you speak where everyone has the right to negotiate a fair deal with an employer without the use of a bargaining unit .... keep dreaming. It's a nice dream, but just that. Good for you that you have been able to, really, I applaud you, but bear in mind your experience is yours only.



PS: By any chance do you have any six fingers on your left hand?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by gammell

The contrast in garbage collection in Calgary and Toronto (weak vs. strong convergence) is a demonstration of that.

Yeah, so far in my time here I've been impressed with how unions operate in this province. At least I assume many city/provincial services are unionized here. I've yet to see Calgary held hostage by a union. Or a complete breakdown in essential services.

So unions CAN work, or at least they seem to here for the most part.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Couldn't have said it better myself. And this is why discussing unions with pro-union people is generally pointless - they all too often assume that somehow you're defending corporations.

They're both evil. Period. But at least without a union, I'm free to negotiate for myself, and get a better deal based on merit. I know a lot of people claim that that's impossible, but I've done it all my life and it's worked out pretty damned sweet. It helps to be good at what you do.

If unions were optional, I'd be all for them. The fact that me as a worker who can and will negotiate for his own terms based on his own merit is a threat to unions - well, that says everything I need to know.

Unions cannot, in practice, be optional. They can either enforce collective bargaining for the entire workforce, or at least an entire segment of it, or else they are toothless and easily broken. There is no middle ground. Membership is either mandatory or there is no point. If you want to break the power of labour then, hey, that is your right but don't pretend that it isn't what you're advocating.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by mooky

And freeweed, the world in which you speak where everyone has the right to negotiate a fair deal with an employer without the use of a bargaining unit .... keep dreaming. It's a nice dream, but just that. Good for you that you have been able to, really, I applaud you, but bear in mind your experience is yours only.

Why is it only a dream? What is preventing others from doing it? What makes Freeweed such a special case that he is to be considered abnormal?

If freeweed has the right to do it (and he has demonstrated that he has), doesn't that mean that everyone does (for this country, granted others in a dictatorship might not)?

[mooky]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Why is it only a dream? What is preventing others from doing it? What makes Freeweed such a special case that he is to be considered abnormal?

If freeweed has the right to do it (and he has demonstrated that he has), doesn't that mean that everyone does (for this country, granted others in a dictatorship might not)?

Everyone can try, many will fail.... do you think people before unions didn't try to negotiate? Were they always successful?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mooky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abuse

Union A is bad, therefore all unions are bad.

Still not ad hominem. Read that article just a bit more carefully. If I had said "mooky supports unions, but he beats his wife, so therefore unions are bad" - THAT would be ad hominem. If anything your example is an over-generalization at best, but it's certainly not an ad hominem.

And freeweed, the world in which you speak where everyone has the right to negotiate a fair deal with an employer without the use of a bargaining unit .... keep dreaming. It's a nice dream, but just that. Good for you that you have been able to, really, I applaud you, but bear in mind your experience is yours only.

See, that could be argued as bordering on ad hominem ("you're dreaming, therefore your argument is full of 🞵🞵🞵🞵"). But I won't split hairs as I'd rather address a point directly.

It's not a dream. Everyone does have this right. Just because not everyone is WILLING to exercise this right, or does not have the ability to get a better deal based on merit, or have made life decisions that have resulted in them being completely stuck, does not mean people do not have the right.

I'm not talking about the 19th century. I'm not talking about China. I'm solely talking about the here and now, modern 21st century North America. Calgary, being a city primarily composed of non-unionized workers, is living proof that it's a reality now. Nearly everyone who works here has the ability (hell, the obligation, being non-unionized) to negotiate their own terms, and it's working out splendidly for Calgarians. We have the highest wages in the country, the highest cost of living by some standards (yet we still pay the bills), the highest employment rate.

So how you can call this a "dream" - Much of this city lives it every day.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mooky

Everyone can try, many will fail.... do you think people before unions didn't try to negotiate? Were they always successful?

Has every union protected every job? Has every union always looked out for its workers first?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

PS: while that could be "ad hominem" if I was using it to actually say "you're wrong" based on your use of the phrase... I'm not. So again, still not ad hominem.

Originally Posted by gammell

Ad hominem isn't a fallacy when the moral accusations are relevant to the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by mooky

Alright, I concede on the ad hominem abuse...... I was trying to say that since you claim one union is bad they all must.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Still not ad hominem. Read that article just a bit more carefully. If I had said "mooky supports unions, but he beats his wife, so therefore unions are bad" - THAT would be ad hominem. If anything your example is an over-generalization at best, but it's certainly not an ad hominem.

Thanks freeweed. For the record, an ad homimen is where some one attacks an argument based on who is making the argument rather than the strength of the argument itself. Mooky, what you were accusing others of using would be called a "hasty generalization" or maybe a "biased sample." Just to clear things up.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Still not ad hominem. Read that article just a bit more carefully. If I had said "mooky supports unions, but he beats his wife, so therefore unions are bad" - THAT would be ad hominem. If anything your example is an over-generalization at best, but it's certainly not an ad hominem.

I edited, not quite ad-hominem on my part, sorry....

See, that could be argued as bordering on ad hominem ("you're dreaming, therefore your argument is full of 🞵🞵🞵🞵"). But I won't split hairs as I'd rather address a point directly.

It's not a dream. Everyone does have this right. Just because not everyone is WILLING to exercise this right, or does not have the ability to get a better deal based on merit, or have made life decisions that have resulted in them being completely stuck, does not mean people do not have the right.

I'm not talking about the 19th century. I'm not talking about China. I'm solely talking about the here and now, modern 21st century North America. Calgary, being a city primarily composed of non-unionized workers, is living proof that it's a reality now. Nearly everyone who works here has the ability (hell, the obligation, being non-unionized) to negotiate their own terms, and it's working out splendidly for Calgarians. We have the highest wages in the country, the highest cost of living by some standards (yet we still pay the bills), the highest employment rate.

So how you can call this a "dream" - Much of this city lives it every day.

We don't live bottled up in this city, your ipod isn't made here in Calgary is it? nor 95% of the products you or I use, unless your an extremist "localist" consumer living in a green earth home, minimalistic, with all your food being local, etc etc.... no one I know or I can probably assume you know is that "extreme"

As for it being your experience, it is, you are not everyone, that's not ad hominem, that's a fact. You have been able to negotiate a fair deal, the person making your cell phone in china, probably not, but we as a society allowed that manufacturing to take place in china as a subtle attack on unions because we wanted cheap goods (going back to my argument of the corporate lobby on free trade), driving the downward spiral of north American manufacturing, decimating the middle class in the process. With that goes the purchasing power they enjoy to buy good quality items so they have no choice but to shop at Walmart, buying cheap Chinese goods, continuing the viscous circle. At least I acknowledge that fact, even though in some cases there are no alternatives then to buy said cheap 🞵🞵🞵🞵 quality items. Deeper understanding of the issue at more then a local level, we live in a global world I keep getting told, so I see it as all linked.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Has every union protected every job? Has every union always looked out for its workers first?

No, but I prefer unions existing to the alternative still. Corporations always look out for profits in the end, not employees.


In the end, your anti-union stance boils down to "there is corruption in unions" .. well, yes and any time corruption is found it has to be rooted out, but there is also far more corruption in corporations, and they have done far more damage to workers rights then unions ever will, and unless you can come up with an alternative to unions, don't be so quick to marginalize what they have done in the past, what they continue to do in the present, and what they strive to do in the future for workers rights at home, and around the world.

If we fail to understand the past, we are bound to repeat the mistakes. And our past is the present in much of the world from which we get our goods off the backs of hundreds of millions of people with limited or no right to a fair deal, and we perpetuate it day in and day out. I don't want to go down that road, personally. And yes, I will stipulate I am a hypocrite consumer like most of cheap goods, but I try to make small differences, I don't shop at Walmart (go watch "WalMart: The High Cost of Low Prices" if you haven't) ... but I'm not perfect, far from it.

[jeffwhit]

^^ this is all very boring. Margaret Atwood is trying to steal our Mayor, and replace him with second rate thai food: http://twitter.com/#!/MargaretAtwood