Please give American Airlines flight attendants the other $81 million

[Karee 4,191]

This is what totally blows my mind. There is no motivating factor to do anything other than come to work. There is no reason to try to stand out because there is no benefit in it.

I remember going to grievance meetings and outside the conference room the union folks telling me what a worthless person the griever was and how they all hated him and he makes them all look bad etc. etc. I'd ask them "why put up with it? Say something in the meeting". No, they would say we can't, he's a union brother.

Like I said the plant closed.

I remember getting a job at 17 years old in telecom in Detroit. My first and only experience working a union job. On day 1 they gave me a book that showed all the pay scales. If you do x job for y years, this is how much you make. Didn't matter how good or bad you did it. Then they told me about the 2 hours a month they were taking from my check.

After a few months of working at a GM site running cable, the janitors went on strike. Since we couldn't cross their picket line, I got to sit home with almost no pay for 3 weeks. Then on a couple other occasions, this guy would roll through and ask to see everyone's union card. If you didn't have it, you went home without pay for the rest of the day. I have like 50 stories of silliness like that.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Yeah unions did a lot of good in their day. No argument from me about that. But so did things like buggy whips and walkmen. Time to move on.

Globalization has made it cheaper for things to be manufactured overseas. It doesn't make sense to pay someone in the U.S. $40 an hour to screw on the same bolt over and over. That is part of what killed unions. It can be done cheaper overseas or by a robot here in the U.S.

Is doesn't have to be that way, American workers shouldn't have to compete with third world workers, and the they do so, is because people have been brainwashed into believing that there is no other alternative.

[Póg mo 1,749]

I see. So perfectly exceptional Americans turn into lazy slobs once they join a union. Yeah, that makes sense.

His experiences with unions were bad, so therefore all unions are bad. What is wrong with this picture? Anyway, we wouldn't need unions if better laws existed that could do more to protect workers from being exploited.

[Karee 4,191]

His experiences with unions were bad, so therefore all unions are bad. What is wrong with this picture? Anyway, we wouldn't need unions if better laws existed that could do more to protect workers from being exploited.

Ahh I see you're doing you're usual cherry picking. Carry on. I pointed out multiple different reasons in addition to my personal experience as to why the union's time has passed them by.. if I hadn't pointed out my personal experience, then you're response would've been that I was never a union member, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about.

As I pointed out, I grew up in Detroit. Almost my entire family was in one union or another. I've seen it all. It wasn't just my personal experience. Most of family would probably tell you that unions were great. That's because the unions saved their azz 100s of times when they should've been fired. Or because they could do as little as possible and get a paycheck and raises year after year just because they were in a union.

Sorry that's no way to have a successful competitive workforce.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah unions did a lot of good in their day. No argument from me about that. But so did things like buggy whips and walkmen. Time to move on.

Globalization has made it cheaper for things to be manufactured overseas. It doesn't make sense to pay someone in the U.S. $40 an hour to screw on the same bolt over and over. That is part of what killed unions. It can be done cheaper overseas or by a robot here in the U.S.

Other advanced economies are part of the very same global economy as the US. And they manage without screwing over their workforce at every turn. Some of them manage way better than the US in terms of their competitiveness and trade balances. And those are countries where unions are strong. Fighting for better pay and working conditions is not what killed unions. Corporate greed and bought-and-paid-for corporate media and politicians is what killed unions. Unions stand in the way on the race to the bottom. That's why they had to go. Fact is that corporations are more profitable than ever. Productivity has risen significantly over the last several decades. But none of that increased productivity has made it into the average Joe's paycheck or benefits package. In fact, not only have corporations held on to almost all of the gained productivity but they have raided the benefits packages as well. Their campaign against the unions is paying off big time. And they have even managed to have many Americans think that this is a good or healthy trend. It's awesome when you own the media, I guess.

[Karee 4,191]

Other advanced economies are part of the very same global economy as the US. And they manage without screwing over their workforce at every turn. Some of them manage way better than the US in terms of their competitiveness and trade balances. And those are countries where unions are strong. Fighting for better pay and working conditions is not what killed unions. Corporate greed and bought-and-paid-for corporate media and politicians is what killed unions. Unions stand in the way on the race to the bottom. That's why they had to go. Fact is that corporations are more profitable than ever. Productivity has risen significantly over the last several decades. But none of that increased productivity has made it into the average Joe's paycheck or benefits package. In fact, not only have corporations held on to almost all of the gained productivity but they have raided the benefits packages as well. Their campaign against the unions is paying off big time. And they have even managed to have many Americans think that this is a good or healthy trend. It's awesome when you own the media, I guess.

Better pay and working conditions, eh? Like 35 hour work weeks and 6 weeks of vacation, sky high tax rates. Those equal better productivity? Don't think so.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Better pay and working conditions, eh? Like 35 hour work weeks and 6 weeks of vacation, sky high tax rates. Those equal better productivity? Don't think so.

Germany has an even trade balance with China and - although it's a relatively small country of just over 80 million people - it is the No.2 exporter in the world. Sometimes it actually rises to the top spot exporting even more than China does. Now how do they do that if they're supposedly not productive because of their shorter work weeks, longer vacations and higher taxes? You need to look beyond the corporate driven propaganda against workers rights, compensation and benefits. You can treat people like people and run a competitive economy with competitive businesses all at the same time. Whoever tells you differently is lying to you.

[Póg mo 1,749]

This is what totally blows my mind. There is no motivating factor to do anything other than come to work. There is no reason to try to stand out because there is no benefit in it..

Maybe you haven't heard, but most workers have seen their pay stagnant, and this is despite there not being any unions. Lots of people who work hard, day in and day out get the same pay annual pay increases, as those who hardly work. It almost seems that if you're not prepared to swallow the company cool aid e.g. screw your coworkers over, a person has very little chance of promotion in many cases.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Better pay and working conditions, eh? Like 35 hour work weeks and 6 weeks of vacation, sky high tax rates. Those equal better productivity? Don't think so.

For numbers of hours actually worked, it does.

[Operator 1,927]

Maybe you haven't heard, but most workers have seen their pay stagnant, and this is despite there not being any unions. Lots of people who work hard, day in and day out get the same pay annual pay increases, as those who hardly work. It almost seems that if you're not prepared to swallow the company cool aid e.g. screw your coworkers over, a person has very little chance of promotion in many cases.

Oh I've heard it over and over again. Thing is, I don't buy it. Working hard is what employers expect, it's the norm, or should be. If a person wants to advance they need to stand out, hustle and make a name for themselves.

If an employee doesn't like the flavor of the "cool aid" they are being offered they should move on and find a different flavor.

[Karee 4,191]

For numbers of hours actually worked, it does.

Ok so if I work 5 hours a week I'll be more productive on a per hour basis than someone that works 40 a week. I'll agree with that. However, just about everyone would go bankrupt having employees that only worked 5 hours a week. Point is, where is the cutoff point? Is someone that works 35 hours a week giving you the same productivity as someone that works 40? I doubt it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok so if I work 5 hours a week I'll be more productive on a per hour basis than someone that works 40 a week. I'll agree with that. However, just about everyone would go bankrupt having employees that only worked 5 hours a week. Point is, where is the cutoff point? Is someone that works 35 hours a week giving you the same productivity as someone that works 40? I doubt it.

You may doubt it but many of these European businesses with their shorter work weeks and longer vacation times are more competitive in the global market than businesses here in the US that have their workforce work longer hours and take less time off. Europe has a positive trade balance with the US making Europe a net exporter to the US - to the tune of 116 billion dollars so far for the first ten months of this year. And that is true even though you doubt that - largely unionized - workers in Europe are more productive than - largely non-unionized - workers here in the US. Odd how they pull that off with an allegedly less productive work force, isn't it?

[Karee 4,191]

You may doubt it but many of these European businesses with their shorter work weeks and longer vacation times are more competitive in the global market than businesses here in the US that have their workforce work longer hours and take less time off. Europe has a positive trade balance with the US making Europe a net exporter to the US - to the tune of 116 billion dollars so far for the first ten months of this year. And that is true even though you doubt that - largely unionized - workers in Europe are more productive than - largely non-unionized - workers here in the US. Odd how they pull that off with an allegedly less productive work force, isn't it?

Big deal. The EU has trade surplus with the U.S. What does that prove? Nothing.

Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. has a Trade Surplus For the month of April 2013

                                                   Year To Date                                   Surplus in       Surplus in                                    Millions         Millions Country Name                       of U.S. $        of U.S. $ Hong Kong                           2,447.47        11,624.01 United Arab Emirates                1,991.64         8,710.97 Netherlands                         1,648.07         5,633.46 Switzerland                         1,431.58         1,553.54 Belgium                             1,325.79         4,182.57 Brazil                              1,187.91         5,466.79 Australia                           1,076.22         5,083.38 Panama                                775.06         3,510.04 Singapore                             756.94         3,852.05 Argentina                             594.95         1,679.04 

So what does the above chart mean? Does it mean the U.S. has better working conditions than Hong Kong, the UAE, Netherlands etc, just because we have a trade surplus with them?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Big deal. The EU has trade surplus with the U.S. What does that prove? Nothing.

Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. has a Trade Surplus For the month of April 2013

                                                   Year To Date                                   Surplus in       Surplus in                                    Millions         Millions Country Name                       of U.S. $        of U.S. $ Hong Kong                           2,447.47        11,624.01 United Arab Emirates                1,991.64         8,710.97 Netherlands                         1,648.07         5,633.46 Switzerland                         1,431.58         1,553.54 Belgium                             1,325.79         4,182.57 Brazil                              1,187.91         5,466.79 Australia                           1,076.22         5,083.38 Panama                                775.06         3,510.04 Singapore                             756.94         3,852.05 Argentina                             594.95         1,679.04 

So what does the above chart mean? Does it mean the U.S. has better working conditions than Hong Kong, the UAE, Netherlands etc, just because we have a trade surplus with them?

How did you derive that from what was discussed? Better working conditions do not result in trade surplus. A trade surplus is, however, a reasonable indicator for global competitiveness - with caveats as it concerns resource economies, of course. The UAE will be a net exporter globally as long as that oil gets pumped out of the desert and that has little or nothing to do with their competitiveness. That said, out of your list of countries that have trade deficits against the US, only four (HK, Brazil, Australia and Panama) have overall trade deficits. That means while these 10 countries may import more from the US than they export back to the US, 6 of them maintain trade at a positive balance globally - i.e. making them net exporters in the global market. While the US on a bilateral basis may be a net exporter to these countries, the US has not achieved a positive trade balance in the global market since the early 1980's.

All that de-unionizing certainly hasn't helped the US become more competitive in the world, has it?

Edited December 10, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,191]

Germany has an even trade balance with China and - although it's a relatively small country of just over 80 million people - it is the No.2 exporter in the world. Sometimes it actually rises to the top spot exporting even more than China does. Now how do they do that if they're supposedly not productive because of their shorter work weeks, longer vacations and higher taxes? You need to look beyond the corporate driven propaganda against workers rights, compensation and benefits. You can treat people like people and run a competitive economy with competitive businesses all at the same time. Whoever tells you differently is lying to you.

How did you derive that from what was discussed? Better working conditions do not result in trade surplus. A trade surplus is, however, a reasonable indicator for global competitiveness - with caveats as it concerns resource economies, of course. The UAE will be a net exporter globally as long as that oil gets pumped out of the desert and that has little or nothing to do with their competitiveness. That said, out of your list of countries that have trade deficits against the US, only four (HK, Brazil, Australia and Panama) have overall trade deficits. That means while these 10 countries may import more from the US than they export back to the US, 6 of them maintain trade at a positive balance globally - i.e. making them net exporters in the global market. While the US on a bilateral basis may be a net exporter to these countries, the US has not achieved a positive trade balance in the global market since the early 1980's.

All that de-unionizing certainly hasn't helped the US become more competitive in the world, has it?

You brought up trade balances.