-- 22 States in the USA now have "right to work" laws.

-- It has been said that over 50% of corporations wishing to expand, or relocate, will not consider a State that does not have "right to work" laws.

-- It is a well documented fact that countries with a heavy concentration of labor unions have a dismal record when it comes to job creation and economic growth.

quote:

---

QUESTION: Who's behind this so-called 'right-to-work' movement?

ANSWER: Originally it was the National Association of Manufacturers, who, in 1905, kicked off this anti-union, "open shop" attack. Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, it became known as the "American Plan." During World War II, their assault on unions picked up the 'right-to-work' name tag courtesy of a Dallas editorial writer. Along the way, other diehard, anti-worker groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau, joined in. Keep in mind these are the same groups that led the fights against the National Labor Relations Act. child labor and minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, job safety standards, pension protection legislation and every other twentieth century pro-worker law designed to civilize the American workplace. And they were also the same groups that led the fight for the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act and 14(b).

QUESTION: So who is pushing 'right-to-work' these days?

ANSWER: When they get the chance, the state associations of the original three ringleaders are still out there peddling 'right-to-work.' But the main front group is a right-wing organization called the National Right To Work Committee (NRTWC) which is funded and controlled by anti-union business executives. A court suit brought against the Committee revealed that more than 80 percent of its contributions come from business and corporate sources. Headquartered in Virginia since the early 1990s, the NRTWC and its legal foundation received annual contributions of more than $9 million.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Unions. The people responsible for the weekend. Oh, and the eight-hour day. And the minimum wage. Oh, and no child labour.

---

Unions however cannot own anything, that is, only workers can own, and in some cases like Enron for example, are forced to buy shares in their bankrupt company.

If unions had the same legal status as corporations they could replace them as the main organizing principle in a society. Unions could be set up to establish guild and hereditary peer rights in meaningful and socially beneficial ways.

I have no idea what the future holds. It all seems utter chaos when you think about it. The highest operative principle among the most powerful and priviledged is sanctified greed.
In such a system how will society, indeed the very planet itself, maintain human existence on it?

The question for some is then does law or ethics have any effect at all on human behaviour? Does attavism overthrow common decency because it is an idealistic and illusory notion? Or does the current system prevent human compassion from ascending to the thrown of social organization?

...er in a nutshell.

Anyway Jared Diamond illustrates how laws relating to environmental responsibility resulted in corprations actually improving the rain forest habitat in New Guinea. (see Collapse, his new book).

Once the managerial classes are faced with tough new international labour laws - which seems a lot more likely tha Herra's thesis - they will be forced to respond. Their aptitudes and people skills will actually be liberated from the monosyllabic epiphanies of capitalism.

That is exactly what happended in the 2nd world war - the social engineers had a new simple paradigm and while I'm sure the munitions and war profiteers looked at it differently many of the domestic social problems were virtually solved overnight.

What I don't understand is why elderly men all exhibit the same reactionary tendancies. You'd think that with our lifetime of experiences we would have a better grasp of reality. Why do we take such rigid and uncompromising "positions" ? Why do we become "trolls"? Are we wanting to live up to the stereotype.

...no agism intended - just wondering about it.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Boinker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Herra is just starting one anti-union thread after another...

---

quote:

---

Our laws in Canada pertaining to labor unions are not changing with the times.. We are now in a worldwide economy.. With global competition, Canada is going to be left far behind unless the powers of the labor union movement are curbed.

---

The solution to global competition and the race to lower workers' wages is international worker solidarity.

Labour laws should make it easier for workers to organize unions. If 10% of the workers in any workplaces sign union membership cards the labour boards should usually conduct union certification votes within 5 days. Union certification applications should not be allowed less than 4 months before the end of collective agreements.

Labour laws should also make it illegal for employers to hire scabs during strikes and lockouts.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Webb:
Yes, I do.

---

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Ron Webb ]

quote:

---

-- It is a well documented fact that countries with a heavy concentration of labor unions have a dismal record when it comes to job creation and economic growth.

---

Not necessarily. Two examples:

Sweden - unemployment rate: 5.3%
union density: 81.1%

quote:

---

Whether it's one thread or a thousand, the fact DOES remain that Herra has posted nothing but anti-union trolling.

---

I know. And I feel bad thinking Ron Webb was so abysmally stupid in not recognising that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
Ron is right about the number of posts. He's also picking nits. And if we want to be that pissy about it, he did start two threads, so that qualifies as "one after another."

---

quote:

---

Whether it's one thread or a thousand, the fact DOES remain that Herra has posted nothing but anti-union trolling.

---

herra only seemed like he was starting one stupid, anti-union thread after another.

I once posted on a right-wing American blog. I thought those people were scum, but it was their discussion board and any leftist interlopers had to accept their ownership of it. There was also a no profanity rule.

I didn't have the bad manners to post leftist monologues, one after the other, just to piss people off and abuse their bandwidth.

Real US Unemployment somewhere around 10 %

Here are some people who believe the real unemployment rate in the US is 23 %

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Herra may be anti-union, but he is not trolling. His only other thread is now over a hundred posts long, and overdue for retirement

---

Herra is deliberately posting inflammatory material for the sole purpose of provoking a hostile reaction. That's trolling. I participated in the fray for a while, and now regret it.

You're right, Herra. Our laws are too "labour friendly." But why compare our social wage to only the American South? Maybe we can all work for 80 hours a week at $1 an hour with no benefits like many do in the Global South.

Just wondering, Herra: are you going to start working for $1 an hour as well or continue to cause more capital flight and unemployment in Canada while working for a decent wage.

I and the other vulger wage slaves in this post eagerly await your answer.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Sweden - unemployment rate: 5.3%
union density: 81.1%

---

Sweden's unions are not more docile than Canadian ones. They have more centralized bargaining procedures and contract negotiations are subsequently taken more seriously by all parties. Canada's firm-centred bargaining process provides more opportunities for personalities and etc., to create a strike situation.

Swedish workers have far more control over their jobs "running the establishment" than do Canadian workers.

quote:

---

Just wondering, Herra: are you going to start working for $1 an hour as well or continue to cause more capital flight and unemployment in Canada while working for a decent wage.

---

Everything is relevant sir. Costs in lower wage jurisdictions could conceivable enable one to have a decent standard of living earning $1.00/hr

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:
Unless wage rates in Canada come down to earth you will definately see capital flight as employers seek out jurisdictions where they can continue to produce and still remain competitive. Ditto for unemployment.[/QB]

---

OK, then when are you going to take a pay cut? Or are you going to continue to cause unemployment in Canada by having a stable income.

Also, why have the incomes of managers and other corporate executives increased rapidly over the past twenty years while wages in real terms for working class Canadians have been stagnant? Of all people, shouldn't executives understand the importance of low wages and poor working conditions as a means of creating jobs?

I mean, we all know how important it is for corporations to create jobs for unemployed people. Why, it's their top priority.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Herra is deliberately posting inflammatory material for the sole purpose of provoking a hostile reaction. That's trolling. I participated in the fray for a while, and now regret it.

I have notified audra. Until she has an opportunity to act I would encourage you to ignore this thread. It is not going anywhere productive.

---

Would you like to suppress free speech? I have been involved in forums of this nature for 6 years and have never ever had a thread closed down before. One thread of mine lasted for almost 3 years with over 3600 postings. I was posting similar material as here and I had more people onside with me than against. It was a wonderful forum and I met some very nice people through it.

By the way is this forum run by a labour union?
Not very difficult for me to leave such a hostile site as this one and I will gladly spread the word around for you if you so wish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Herra is deliberately posting inflammatory material for the sole purpose of provoking a hostile reaction.

---

quote:

---

Also, why have the incomes of managers and other corporate executives increased rapidly over the past twenty years while wages in real terms for working class Canadians have been stagnant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Webb:
Herra has posted deliberately controversial material, for the purpose of provoking a discussion.

---

Oh, please. Herra makes sweeping claims with no evidence to support them:

"Most managers and executives incomes are tied to productivity and profitability of the corporation."

"The difference in union v/s non-union pay to the employer is miniscule when you haven't factored in productivity... You factor in the difference in productivity and in many instances you will see that union labour can increase costs up to tenfold over non-union workers".

Herra then ignores responses that provide counter-evidence. That's hardly a "discussion".

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: MacD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:
Sean Cain

Vast difference sir. Most managers and executives incomes are tied to productivity and profitability of the corporation.

---

Yes, you are certainly correct. There is a vast difference between the pay and benefits of working class Canadians to those of corporate managers, but it has little to do with productivity or profitability. Wages in real terms have been stagnant for most wage-earners in Canada since the late 1970s while they have increased almost exponentially for executives.

Why do workers in Canada apparently understand the importance of being competitive while executives don't?

Nonetheless, you still haven't answered my original question. When are you going to take a pay cut in order for Canada to remain "competitive" and maintain current levels of unemployment. Or are you going to continue to receieve the same income and threaten the economy with job losses?

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

I don't agree with all your postings but do like your standing up to the so-called 'progressive' forces on this forum. I also didn't know at first that only NDP Laborites were allowed to post to the forum (so I've been reminded many times when I questioned their parroting of rhetoric). All others must be censored? There is an irony in that 'progressive' has come to mean making personal attacks against others of differing views and demanding their banishmnet.

quote:

---

Perhaps Herra will point us to proof that union work costs more than private contracting on average

---

I'll let you do the math on that one

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: Herra ]

quote:

---

When are you going to take a pay cut in order for Canada to remain "competitive" and maintain current levels of unemployment.

---

quote:

---

Umm, no you don't. Those are "most recent posts," not everything that someone ever posted. herra was so busy posting his masturbatory diatribes that the 2 or 3 other threads he started on the same vein didn't show up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:
As soon as I'm old enough to start working.. You have my word on that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:
-- It is a well documented fact that countries with a heavy concentration of labor unions have a dismal record when it comes to job creation and economic growth.

---

Not true. The United States has the lowest rate of unionized workforce, and their economic growth has been somewhat stagnant since 2000. Euro-socialist and Scandinavian countries continue to hold 5 of the top ten most competitive economies with socialist Finland rating top spot last year ahead of the U.S.
World Ecnomic Forum - ECGI

If you can show us this documented fact, then we might take you seriously. This Canadian source describes a World Bank study from 2003 which states that In a report that analyzed more than 1,000 studies on unions, the bank found countries with an established history of complex collective bargaining enjoyed less persistent unemployment, fewer and shorter strikes and less discrimination against workers and an overall better investment climate.

quote:

---

Highly unionized workforces also tend to produce fewer low-wage jobs. In Canada and the U.S., about one in four workers is in a low-wage job, defined as paying less that two-thirds of the median wage. But only one in eight German workers and one in 20 Swedish workers holds a low-wage job.

---

Coincidentally, Canada and the United States own some of the worst rates of child poverty among rich nations.

If you read this a couple of times you realize the mistake you made? You related docility to flexiblity and cooperation. You'd have to think, people less then intelligent, about negotiated processes in sweden?

Statistics are wonderful for defining positions.

Adds a certain responsibility and validity to the claims. Initiates requirements, for counter claims. Gives the personal idealizations, some credibility.

Disregrading calculations then would be diregrading the validity of the statistical argument and thus, relegated to subjective views, without basis( or maybe delusional ones) that we had congered up, as we grew.

IN this light, if Herra wanted to continue....I think it fair that enhancement of dialogue would encourage some learning? It certainly revealled character when above quote is looked at?

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

"There was a dispute in the shipyards about which union was responsible for moving a wheelbarrow from one side of the yard to the other. The jurisdictional squabble ballooned and the union threatened to close twenty two miles of shipyards if it wasn't settled. I asked a secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress to appear on my program... he did. After indicating it was the silliest labour problem I had ever heard of, my first question was "What machinery do you have to stop this incomprehensible jurisdictional dispute that you could possibly close the whole of the Clyde on Monday morning at 6 AM?" He looked me in the eye and said "If we have any machinery,sir, it's none of your business" He got up and left the studio... interview over. That's the attitude that killed the shipyard industry on the Clyde"

---

quote:

---

You'd have to think, people less then intelligent, about negotiated processes in sweden?

---

In 1991, after they had already largely abandoned the classic Swedish model of the postwar years, the social democrats were voted out of office. The new conservative government appointed a commission of seven non-socialist economists "to analyze the economic crisis in Sweden and to suggest ways to solve it." Turning Sweden Around" documents the revenge of the iron law of wages. It finds an unemployment rate of 14%, public sector spending running at an unsustainable rate of 70% of Gross Domestic Product, a fall from arguably first among industrialized nations in GDP per capita to 14th, a strong inflation bias, recurrent budget deficits, and severe financial and building crises.

In its six sophisticated, well-written, and mathematically accurate chapters "Turning Sweden Around" repeats again and again one central and pervasive theme: Swedish wages are too high ! To compete in international markets, Sweden must produce goods at competitive prices, which means paying less to workers (either directly or indirectly, through taxes).

The main theme of "Turning Sweden Around" is not a surprise. it is common sense...it is the teaching of plain old fashioned classical micro-economics...it is a conclusion mandated by the constitutive rules of modern society.

That historical experience revealed the limitations of the Swedish model is not a surprise. What is surprising is that in the 1950s and 1960s so many people believed that the Swedish model was sustainable and generalizable to the rest of the world. What needs to be explained is the specious credibility of the illusions it engendered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:

In 1991, after they had already largely abandoned the classic Swedish model of the postwar years...

---

Compare that with unions here in Canada who continue to escalate their militancy. They try to claim that they help the average worker while they are in effect saying "make the poor pay". Union workers are paid much better than other workers. Union demands in the public sector are forcing everyone, rich and poor alike, to pay higher taxes than necessary.

Furthermore, high public sector wages aren't based on productivity or service provided. They're based on political leverage ... how much the governing party is dependent on labor union support.

If workers in a private company demand wages beyond what they're worth, unrelated to productivity, the company either rejects the demands or goes bankrupt. When public-sector
unions make unreasonable demands the government doesn't go bankrupt.... it raises taxes.

High taxes kill economic growth and jobs. People at the low end of the scale bear the biggest cost. Everyone, except government employees, suffers from low economic growth.

Without profits, the incentives to invest disappears and that translates into unemployment.

What needs to be considered is to eliminate the right to strike in the public sector. Furthermore, employers must be given the right to bring in replacement workers when union workers opt for "stop power". This means "right to work" laws or Voluntary Unionism. This would benefit all workers not just a privileged minority.

quote:

---

In the Nordic countries and much of Europe, however, the beast remains well fed. According to the OECD, Sweden, Denmark and Finland devote almost a third of their GDP to social transfers. Germany and France devote about a quarter. America redirects only 14% or so of its national income in this way.

---

Economist April, 2004

quote:

---

Unless you're really Howard Richards, now you're plagiarizing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:
Not if you quote the source [Encarta Encyclopedia][/QB]

---

Which you failed to do until you were called on it. There are two problems here. The first is that you've pasted in someone else's words as if they're your own. The second is that by failing to cite and link, you've denied everyone else the opportunity to place the material you've posted in context.

Personally I think this is banworthy, but it's not my call. But at the very least, you've now blown any tenuous claim to credibility you had. I, for one, don't bother to discuss things with someone who won't distinguish between his own words and someone else's.

quote:

---

In the Nordic countries and much of Europe, however, the beast remains well fed. According to the OECD, Sweden, Denmark and Finland devote almost a third of their GDP to social transfers. Germany and France devote about a quarter. America redirects only 14% or so of its national income in this way.

---

You left out my homeland [Iceland] When you make reference to Nordic [or Scandinavian] countries Iceland is one of the five. But here's one for you to digest:

quote:

---

There are two problems here. The first is that you've pasted in someone else's words as if they're your own.

---

So it is labours fault? Social support systems unjustfiable burden?

The Nordic countries are characterized by excellent macroeconomic management overall – they are all running budget surpluses – they have extremely low levels of corruption, with their firms operating in a legal environment in which there is widespread respect for contracts and the rule of law, and their private sectors are on the forefront of technological innovation.

So labour has found justifiable means to thwart laws in Canada to force further inflationary scenarios into reasons why this country is faltering?

This is getting ridiculous. Counter/add support?

No more stories I guess, just fact. What unions had broken labour law? Site cases, and reasons why.

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[1] Disallow union dues as a tax deduction..... this is not a government program such as CPP or EI. This is almost akin to allowing mortgage or car payments as a tax deduction.

[2] Disallow the strike weapon altogether. If a worker refuses to work that's the end of employment for him/her. Strikes inconvenience too many people..... if strikes are allowed then the union should first be compelled to set up a fund from which members of the public that are inconvenienced can collect for damages. Furthermore the strike weapon is too damaging to the employer.

[3] Bring in Voluntary Unionism or "right to work" laws.

[4] Non-union workers should not have to pay the same rate of income tax as union workers. This would help level out the playing field. Labour unions should be forced to pay a premium for the powers they have that others do not.

History tells us that over the past 250 years we have had inflation that has come in cycles of [approximately] 50 years. Each of these inflationary cycles has been followed by a depression that has brought prices and wages back to the level they were at before the inflation set in........... History repeats itself.

By contrast, we have people in the armed forces who work for much less pay than union members; and who realize that the job is done when the job is done....not when the bell rings.
These people learn the benefits of working together with their peers to achieve a goal; and doing what it takes to get the job done. These people proudly serve our country and learn
skills that translate to productivity in the free market when they leave the military.

What distinguishes the workers in these 2 groups? The words "selfishness and greed" seem to separate the 2 types of workers. The public admires those in our military and respects them for the work they do under difficult circumstances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:

*snip ideological masturbation*

---

-- Commodity prices peaked in London in 1711. The South Seas Bubble burst in 1720. -- Depression followed.

-- Producer Prices peaked in London in 1763. The London stock market crashed again in 1772. -- Depression followed.

-- Commodity prices peaked in London in 1816. The London stock market crashed in 1825. -- Depression followed.

-- Wholesale prices peaked in New York in 1864. A worldwide assets crash began in May 1873. -- Depression followed.

-- Wholesale prices peaked in the United States in 1919. Wall Street crashed in 1929 -- Depression followed.

--Commodity prices peaked in Tokyo in 1980. The Tokyo stock market peaked in 1989 and crashed in 1990.

Span of the cycles:

From 1720 to 1772 ----- 52 years

From 1772 to 1825 ----- 53 years

From 1825 to 1873 ----- 48 years

From 1873 to 1929 ----- 56 years

With all due respect, you've posted on this thread about a zillion times with union-bashing arguments that have continually been pounded to pieces by others who have an understanding of the relationship between strong unions, high wages and low unemployment.

It seems that although you can communicate free market rhetoric fairly well, you seem to have little understanding of how the economy actually affects the living standards and well-being of working people, a problem shared by most right-wing economists.

You wrote earlier that you were "too young to work." I'm assuming that you are being honest, which means that you are under the age of 15. What worries me is the fact that neo-liberal economic policies that have ruined hundreds of millions of people lives throughout the world have apparently made such an impression on a young person. When I was your age, I was no where near as indoctrinated as you are.

If you hate unions, high wages, and progressive taxation that much, you are free to move to another country where these don't exist and work for 80 hours a week for low pay under horrible working conditions.

Instead of "Babble" I think the name of this discussion forum should be changed to
"The NDP/Labour Union hangout"-- What say audra trower williams/babbler?

quote:

---

I have said what I wanted to say -- I said it fast and got it over with in one week -- would have been outa here in 4 days hadn't robbie_dee shut down my first thread because his one track mind couldn't accept opinions other than his own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herra:

Instead of "Babble" I think the name of this discussion forum should be changed to
"The NDP/Labour Union hangout"-- What say audra trower williams/babbler?

---

quote:

---

...would have been outa here in 4 days hadn't robbie_dee shut down my first thread because his one track mind couldn't accept opinions other than his own.

---

Step 1. Click on Herra's profile

Step 2. Click on "Add to Your Ignore List"

Step 3. Enjoy!