Politics (formerly Election 2012)

[Fridmarr]

That's one perspective.
It's not the only one.

Red states love demonizing unions and talking about how they lead to mediocre worker performance, stifle competition, an suck business owners dry.
They congratulate themselves on their "Right To Work" state laws.

Blue states view things differently.
To many liberals, "Right To Work" is a sick farce. It is really "Right To Get Fired/Exploited". Blue states love demonizing greedy corporate leaders who will pursue profits to the point of socially destructive immoral behavior.

They congratulate themselves on the social good of their unions by telling anecdotes about WalMart, etc, raping their work force by turning 1 full time job into 2 part time jobs for no other reason than so they can squeeze just as much work out, while not providing any benefits at all to anyway, and providing no livable-wage jobs to that community.


So what is the truth?
As with most issues, probably somewhere in the middle.

People love to demonize non right to work states because it's and obvious an gross violation of personal liberties that ought be demonized by everybody. Forcing someone pay for representation that, they don't want, don't need, and may well lobby against their personal beliefs or...they are not allowed to have a job in their field, is nothing short of appalling.

It's not merely my perspective, states that support that position are clearly and objectively out of balance from a competition perspective, and that is taken advantage of to nearly everyone's detriment.

Also, the whole full/part time thing has very little to do with unions, but it's the side effect of well intentioned, but ultimately poor government overreach.

My only personal experience with unions was back in my days of doing work as a theater stage manager and lighting designer.

In professional theater, there is a labor union called IATSE, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. It served mainly as an indicator of excellence, and the barrier of entry was relatively high.

In order to qualify to join IATSE, you had to accrue a set number of hours of work on productions which were crewed by IATSE members. Effectively, this meant you had to be good enough at your job to be hired independently over any potential union-member competitors.
This was pretty difficult, and thus an IATSE member card was a great way of separating the true professionals from the wannabe amateurs, which is an important thing from a hiring standpoint in something as subjective as the arts. A producer may not know enough about lighting design or sound equipment operation to be able to figure out who to hire, and a resume is just going to be a list of plays each candidate participated in which doesn't always tell you a whole lot.

The benefits of being an IATSE member were largely networking and expanded job opportunities, which is a big factor in theater as work is so temporary. Additionally, all the IATSE members of the crew would have the advantage of having a professional contract negotiator to help represent them during the hiring process, instead of having to fend for themselves. A talented stage manager or props craftsman isn't necessarily also going to be talented at negotiating contracts.

Union rules protect members from abuse by producers or directors, which is also important in a field as high-pressure as the arts, where the temptation is high to make unreasonable demands of your cast and crew. If a particular producer or director got a reputation for being abusive, IATSE member technicians would simply not work for him any more, which would likely have a huge impact on the quality of productions they could put on in the future and likely drive them out of business. Can't get much more free market than that.

Great, but that's not anathema to a right to work state. Unions exist in those states and do all of the things you mention. In those states you have an even playing field, so neither side can generally "rape" the other, as it ought to be. Unions still have plenty of power, but they have to compete like everyone else.

About the only thing that concerns me with what you mention is the barrier for entry that you describe. Barriers to entry for unions have notoriously been rife with nepotism and demographic inequalities, particularly when corporations are compelled to always use union labor. Fortunately, it's vastly improved these days. Anyhow, if the only way to be member is to have worked in the field, and the only way to work in the field (without your future representation picketing your employer) is to be a member, then there is an obvious problem. In that case, there ought to be a third party competency certification program. Other than that, you are talking about basic collective bargaining which also must be maintained (and is) to keep corporations in check.

[Malthrax]

"No, no, no -- don't boo, vote! Voting is the best revenge."

[Paxen]

About the only thing that concerns me with what you mention is the barrier for entry that you describe. Barriers to entry for unions have notoriously been rife with nepotism and demographic inequalities, particularly when corporations are compelled to always use union labor. Fortunately, it's vastly improved these days. Anyhow, if the only way to be member is to have worked in the field, and the only way to work in the field (without your future representation picketing your employer) is to be a member, then there is an obvious problem. In that case, there ought to be a third party competency certification program. Other than that, you are talking about basic collective bargaining which also must be maintained (and is) to keep corporations in check.

I have to agree with Fridmarr here. That trade union sounds more like a guild than a proper labour union, and the purpose seems to be to help the members vs unorganized workers (even though it is legitimate to certify that the members are competent). That's mostly not how european unions work. First you get hired, then you join (one of) the union(s) at your job.

An example: My cousin works for the Oslo Police force, as a civilian - he's an operator on the phone lines and is mainly responsible for screening emergency calls so that the officers aren't bothered by lonely four year olds or drunk lunatics. He's eligible to join the Policeman union, but elected not to and joined a different one instead (mostly because he doesn't trust the leader of said union). All it takes is to be employed at a relevant place, and you're eligible to join, even if it's a union that consists mostly of police officers (who all have studied police work 3 years beyond high school).

[Torquemada]

"No, no, no -- don't boo, vote! Voting is the best revenge."

RIP "Hope and Change."

[Brekkie]

"No, no, no -- don't boo, vote! Voting is the best revenge."

You keep posting these quotes, without any associated commentary.
I assume we are supposed to find something wrong with them and join you in your outrage? Are you just a mindless troll?

What, precisely, is wrong with encouraging people to vote?

[Torquemada]

Nothing is wrong with encouraging voting. However, the motive of seeking REVENGE as a catalyst for heading to the polls seems somehow askew from the message of moving "Forward." If that's what we're heading towards, I'll take feet dragging any day.

[Fivelives]

The Redskins lost - I'm looking forward to tomorrow's coverage to see if the rule holds up.

[Klaudandus]

The Redskins lost - I'm looking forward to tomorrow's coverage to see if the rule holds up.

[Nooska]

Well the Redskins rule has already been broken, was it Bush jr.s reelect I think?

[Klaudandus]

they actually amended the rule... so it would fit the narrative...

*'The modified Redskins Rule stipulates that the party which won the popular vote in the previous election will lose the current election if the Redskins lose the game. In 2000, Al Gore (D) won the popular vote but George W. Bush (R) won the election, therefore the rule still holds true.

[Nooska]

So they rewrote it once (8 years ago, if memory serves), the interesting question isn't if the rule holds true then, but whether "they" need to rewrite it again.

[Klaudandus]

It only counts when both candidates are white

There, I just rewrote it.

And then it's not just the Redskins rule.

There's also the
- Halloween Masks rule (which side sells more) - Obama
- Kid Vote (school mock elections) - Obama
- Summer Olympics (Olympics being hosted by a country that had hosted it previously) - Obama

Which makes me think we just like to see things/patterns out of nothing...

I mean, somehow some people see Jesus on a wood knot...

[Klaudandus]

Oh yeah, apparently the NJ union thing got debunked
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/sandyunion.asp

[Paxen]

Which makes me think we just like to see things/patterns out of nothing...

The human brain is extremely good at pattern recognition - in fact, it so good that it regularly turns up false positives. Obvious examples is seeing shapes in cloud patterns or monsters in the dark, but it goes far beyond that. It's also paired with an astounding capacity for self-deception - the brain uses a lot of shortcuts when processing data, and sometimes those shortcuts are wrong.

A very important part of science is to work against this tendency to see patterns that aren't there.

[Klaudandus]

Fuck you Rudy
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ ... n-katrina/