It is possible that the reason for less strife is the disparity between the workers and the top executives is much less than it is in the USA.
Here the average CEO makes 500 times the average worker. That is reason for discontent within the working class. I think there have been revolutions in other countries over such a wide gap between the haves and have nots. Not likely here as the haves convinced the have nots that they did not need to own a gun.
Good point !!!!
I guess we could attack the wealthy with day old Krispy Kreme donuts.
Skills gap? Riiiiight! My girlfriend's brother has a computer science degree from LaSalle and just about every certification and he's out of work. Gee, maybe he should apply in Bangladore where his job went and work for minimum wage. Heck, at least there will be one guy I can understand when I call for customer assistance for my PC.
so a tax abatement and paying for a railroad spur is a small investment that will bring dividends for many years to come
When government at any level talks about "investing" my tax dollars, I check my pocket to make sure that my wallet is still there. Back in the early 90s, lefty entitlement-lovers began to substitute the word "invest" for "spend" to make the idea of big, bloated government more palatable to voters. I like to remind my socialist friends that governments don't invest -- they spend. Only the private sector can invest.
Taxpayers would be better off if states agreed to stop competing for businesses by throwing money at prospective employers who, in many cases, have learned to game the system. I'd rather see my state become more business friendly by lowering taxes across the board. That's the best way to generate more jobs.
>Taxpayers would be better off if states agreed to stop competing for businesses by throwing money at prospective employers who, in many cases, have learned to game the system.
That's exactly right. The businesses learned that they could get "free plants" and ancillary items all paid for by taxpayers instead of their investment. Politicians love to use these tactics for bragging rights, or kickback rights, to use for future campaigns.
Yes, some people are 'skilled' enough to be involved in crony capitalism (or born with a silver spoon in their mouth, such as Dubya himself), 95% of the population are not.
In other words 95% of the population is depending on the wit and skill of the crony capitalists 5%. All of the above make their choices and decisions as to where they end up.
HEY!!!! Sombody gets it!!!!! Marsha can't comprehend that if people WONT work for you, YOU CAN'T MAKE MONEY!!! YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS W/O EMPLOYEES, therefore, they MUST be treated w/ a decent amout of respect in the form of wages+benefits, safety, hey, even a "Good morning, how are you??
The way she has been talking, you'd thing if an employee hurts themselves on the job, the employer should take them out back and shoot them.
The vast majority of union members are decent folks who just quietly 'go along' because they have no other choice--they belong and support their union because they have to. Talk to these folks away from the shop floor and they will be the first to tell you they don't always agree with the foolish games those 'noismakers' play.
True, again. In some ways, when you vote to go one way as a body, even if YOU didn't vote that way, youaccept the body's vote for good and bad. If enough people are concerned w/ the way their union is going, they may voice their opinions at a union meeting. In this respect, they are no different than any other organization (like a volunteer fire comany). Organizational business is conducted at these meetings, and what the membership votes for, is what must be done.
Think of it this way: If you voted for John Kerry in the last election, do you see him, or George W. as your president?? I voted for Kerry, and W is my prez. Love him or hate him (hate him!!!), I will defend him as my prez.
fezo: thanks for the "sex" correction, but for those who only see my user name, it would be natural for them to see marsha7 as a woman...
daveXXXX (sorry, I lost the 4 digits after your name) "Will Honda workers get a pension?"...I do not believe that company pensions are the future, I think it is 401K's and the like...a pension, like Delta's or whoever, can be obliterated by bankruptcy, whereas a 401K, with matching employer funds, may be much more stable, and, I believe, invested in almost any vehicle you want, and can be left to your heirs if you die...it also means that YOU are now more responsible for your future than the company, but who can be against personal responsibility???
Whoever made the comment (I get lost when responding to multiple posts, no insult intended and no slight is meant, I just forgot who posted what, but I do remember the topic, sort of) about workers who WON'T work for you...that is always a possibility, but, imo, highly unlikely...
Most of the import auto plants set up shop in an area that is probably rural and probably has a prevailing wage structure far below what the automakers will offer, so I would bet that they have 10 applicants for every available position, meaning that employees are ALWAYS available, whereas employers can pick and choose where to go...I always come down on the rights of the employer, simply because if the worker does not like the policies or the environment, simply leave and go where it is more to your liking, but no employee has any right to change what the capitalist has established, simply go elsewhere...stop trying to change what somebody else owns, and go where the world is more to your liking...what is so hard with that???
BTW, while I can absolutely understand eliminating anybody with "union" in their blood, I cannot tolerate discrimination on the basis of race...black, white, tall, short (assuming that they can physically handle the job), discrimination on the basis of anything other than a union past (as that WILL result in an uninhabitable workplace) is intolerable...
Rocky: silverfox does seem to have a point...you are only tryng to prolong a past that is slowly (rapidly?) eroding away, and you sound like someone reminiscing about the "good old days of the 1970s" when the union became the dictators...feel free to enjoy your memories, but the real world is anything but the way you view it...wake up and see the new reality...it is now cheaper for GM to move a plant to Mexico if the union wants too much, so the UAW will protect the jobs, but of a population that is getting smaller and smaller, until they only have one last UAW member's job to protect, and he is the one that will turn off the light switch when he walks out of the last Big 3 auto plant...
Your preachings remind me of Karl Marx, but, luckily, those theories only live on in liberal universities and in the memories of old union members as they have fleeting recollections of the past thru their senile moments...:):):)
How about joining up with the modern capitalists and move forward about 100 years???...you would be welcome...except in my company...:):):):):) :P :shades:
No problem. I can remember a time when that would irk you. I suppose it was probably from people who knew better...
As much as I value the pension I'll be getting I tell my kids to be ready to put that money aside in a 401K. I mourn the passing of the old way of life but one has to move on.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
It's unfortunately sad that both of you are blind to what's going on in the world and are willing to just roll over and die for the greedy capitalist that have ruined this country.
You both seem to think that my way of thinking has ruined the united states. Quite the opposite !!! The unions I support are as pro-american as people in this country come. They are not traitors whom have spent special interest money to elect traitors who give tax breaks to off-shore there business. :mad: The pseudo-capitalist of this country are traitors. They have zero respect for our flag, and the people who died for it. I was watching a Pearl Harbor, video on the history channel yesterday and it was a reminder of how far out of touch with reality we have become. :sick:
The Japanese, may not have won WWII but they are winning the economic war. They got to be laughing at how dumb our people are. The Europeans, have to be doing the same. We are the only 1st world nation that does not protect it's business and workers from unfair trade. China, is destroying our economy and because another buck can be squeezed out of a poor chinamen who is virtually a legal slave to our greedy corporate interest you will support it because it's a free market. The greedy capitalist are megalomaniacs and need to be stopped. I might not have the money, nor power to stop them by myself but I will not let my voice and vote not be heard.
I and my father talked about the United States, for a couple of hours yesterday. Dad, talked about the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and present. He said he never thought we would lose all our good paying manufactoring jobs like we have.
Silverfox5:So Rockylee, you're seeing a hint of future in company/union relationships--you probably won't like what you see and will call folks like Hargrove 'traitors'---but it's the way of the future, like it or not.
Hargrove, is not a traitor but like the UAW, he really had no choice in the matter. When your employer has won absolute power it's cave in a little or lose everything. I believe one day this country and other country's citizens will shed blood and fight back against the greed of the select few. Past history shows communism will rise to power. :sick: Hopefully things will not get that bad and socialism, will set it's roots in this country. Capitalism, without a leash will destroy this country. It's already leaving flesh wounds for many !!!!
Rockylee, your passion in railing against capitalism and capitalists in general is impressive, but you just don't get it! In reality, you're one of them; you're part of a capitalistic system, but you fail to accept that reality. Stop kidding yourself! Please don't tell us that you never look for the 'best deal', or 'lowest price', etc., in your economic dealings with the world! You can't have it both ways--that 'best deal', that right job, full job protection, good pay, generous lifetime pension, full health care, that food, that shelter, those consumer goods, free access to the market place, and so on you say we have a 'right' to, without paying for it. (and that means more sacrifice than just money!) These things you seek aren't just there for the taking. And guess what--the rest of the world wants those same things, and is prepared to do whatever is necessary to get them---just like you do!! Our ancestors created this nation on a capitalistic model, and that model has evolved, sustained, and developed since its origins. Capitalism isn't without its flaws, but it's here and won't likely disappear for a long time to come. There is no 'perfect economic system'. Your analogy about Communism rising to power is notable. Communism, my friend, is just another derivative of capitalism--it's capitalism run by the state--"State Capitalism". You want that?? Evidently many of those with that system have learned it isn't perfect either, and moved to another system---like ours!! And now they're eating our lunch! Even China is evolving toward a free market economic system! You're right about WW2--that was the last time this country rose together as a unified nation and sacrificed much to achieve something worthwhile. It's been downhill ever since--but it isn't the fault of just capitalists, the government, the UAW, other countries, all those you and others place blame on, and so on. It's as much your fault as it is any other issue or cause. What is happening between the CAW and Magna Corp. is the future direction for Capital and Labor--ours to embrace if we collectively have the will. There has to be a mutual cooperation and working together for a common cause between Labor and Capital if this country is able to sustain its economic status in the world market. You really should have passion for that objective. Evidently you do not, because you in fact, are the one who is blind to its reality! It is perfectly clear now why are having difficulty finding employment. Blaming all those other 'causes' is wrong headed. The opportunities are there, and the onus is yours and yours alone. You really can't change others, but you can change yourself!
Your analogy about Communism rising to power is notable. Communism, my friend, is just another derivative of capitalism--it's capitalism run by the state--"State Capitalism". You want that??
No, but I would like our government to evolve into something like modern day Europe, only better and a little more nationalistic.
Honestly, I don't think you know what you want--but when you get it, whatever 'It' is, you will likely find 'It's' not perfect. We'll probably see you expressing a new set of passionate bitchings about 'It' if 'It' ever happens! I've lived extensively in Europe. (Western, not Eastern Bloc) There are many facets of life there which I admire--one big one is their sense of history. There are differences in culture, but European economic systems aren't much different than ours. Europe has been divided by cultural differences over history, but that has changed--hence the EEC. When the EEC works out the few remaining cultural differences which hinder its full economic potential--all I can say is 'Look out North Americans" An economically unified Europe has the potential to send us back to the dark ages! They are definitely moving in that direction. That said, you DO NOT want Europe to give up on nationalistic culture too quickly!!
I know nothing will be perfect. The biggest difference is the Europeans, aren't trying to sell their fellow country men down the river like we are here. :sick:
"The biggest difference is the Europeans, aren't trying to sell their fellow country men down the river like we are here." Rockylee, you know nothing of what you're talking about! Competition is as rigorous and ruthless, if not more so, there than it is here! The most common form of European business model is a "Cash Cow" philosophy. That my friend, simply means 'bleed as much capital as you can out of the business, and when there's nothing left to bleed, move on'. It's a cutthroat place to do business!! A classic example is the purchase and ultimate fire sale of Chrysler by Daimler. Daimler bled Chrysler dry, and then dumped it.
Rockylee, you know nothing of what you're talking about!
I know nothing about life in Europe. I may not of lived their myself but I have read a great deal about Europe, and it's history as I'm European & Scandinavian decent. My father was born in Germany, and my grand parents lived their for about 3 or 4 years when my grandfather was in the U.S. Army. I also have a Cousin, who lived years over in Europe, so I feel my knowledge on the subject is up to par to have at least an opinion.
Competition is as rigorous and ruthless, if not more so, there than it is here!
Yes, but you are missing my main point. The Europeans, prefer to win using their neighbors at home instead of shipping operations over sea's often seen here.
The most common form of European business model is a "Cash Cow" philosophy.
The Europeans, yes specialize in high-tech fields where they can pretty much get their asking price andmake a lotof money. In Germany, they engineer some of the finest machines in the world. They charge a U.S. corporation a large sum of money for that Equipment. The same goes for their automobiles. The union workers get a fair slice of the pie and work 32-35 hours a week with 6 weeks of vacation, every holiday and weekend off thus they shairin the wealth of the business.
That my friend, simply means 'bleed as much capital as you can out of the business, and when there's nothing left to bleed, move on'.
I don't buy that. The Europeans like the Japanese, look long-term. Working in Europe, a employee is basically gauranteed a job for life. They will tariff their competition. They are big trade protectionist and their model should be implemented here in the U.S. That might save a few more jobs and help grow the economy. Ross Perot's, theory of the negatives of "Free Market" capitalism has been proven correct. He said it would grow the economy at a rapid rate for about 10 years and the downward slide would hit.
It's a cutthroat place to do business!!
It's human nature to want to succeeed. I believe they are very competitive but they don't lose touch where they came from and aren't afraid to sacrifice for the good of their country and employees that depend on the company to have a prosperous and happy life.
A classic example is the purchase and ultimate fire sale of Chrysler by Daimler. Daimler bled Chrysler dry, and then dumped it.
LOL, now you do not know what you are talking about. :P The Germans lost there butts on Chrysler. They paid several billion more than what they sold it for. The main reason behind the sale was Chrysler, was dragging down Diamler Benz. Mercedes, left behind an array of R&D products and plans for future use. I would say the U.S. company (Chrysler) sucked the German, company dry like a leach.
...maybe the whole 1945-1973 U.S. economy was just an anomaly? It was something that such prosperity could last for almost a generation.
Sometimes I wonder if the whole rush to outsource was not just a way to destroy the unions which are traditionally found in light and heavy industries. I wonder what the United States would be like had our industries not gone overseas.
Would there be a labor shortage? Would there be massive inflation? Would unions have too much power? Would the U.S. be as polluted as China presently is? Would there be proserity for all who were willing to work? Would there be a lot more economic equality? Would there be more racial harmony? Would our cities be safer? Would our educational system be better or worse? Would there be no healthcare crisis? Would there be a massive influx of legal immigrants without adverse effects? Would illegal immigration diminish as there would be no need to exploit them? Would there be no trade deficit? Would the stock market soar or stagnate? Would there be no Federal budget deficit?
This story illustrates your modern day Europe goal.
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
maybe the whole 1945-1973 U.S. economy was just an anomaly?
Exactly. It was a staggering anomaly. At the end of 1945, every industrial power in the world had been obliterated or impoverished by two colossal wars and and an equally colossal economic implosion between. Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, everyone... except the United States and Canada. The US and Canada accounted for something like 70% of the world's economic output in those days.
Well, time went on and everyone else rebuilt and got their own economies going, the US-brokered Bretton Woods agreements broke down, the North American economy ossified and the old patterns broke apart, and eventually we end up where we are now: instead of one huge fish in a small pond we have a dozen big fishes in the same pond, and those other fish aren't going to starve themselves so Rocky's dad can have a new Cadillac, a bass boat, and a cottage on the lake.
Your analogy is exactly what happened. Those post war years were a huge economic boost to the US economy, whereas most other industrialized countries' economies were in shambles. Today's world is a much different place, economically, and the rules of the game are completely different. Whether we like it or not, the US economy's sustainability is dependent to a large degree on many other countries. We are in competition with those same countries for a shrinking supply of needed resources now as well.
Bumpy's reply is right on the money. When the war ended in 1945, we were the only game in town. (Someone once calculated that Japan's GNP for the first six months after the end of WWII was zero.) Until the early 1960s, we had no meaningful foreign competition. That couldn't last forever, of course, & when Germany & Japan rebuilt, they implemented the latest & greatest manufacturing technology. (Losing a war doesn't have to be all bad. It does force you to start from scratch & find new ways to do things.)
I'm a so-called leading edge baby boomer - a child of the 50s & 60s. My personal observation is that the golden years ended in 1965, when the Vietnam war buildup got underway, & not in 1973. LBJ's conviction that the U.S. could afford to pay both for a major war & for his entitlement programs without raising taxes led to massive Federal budget deficits by the end of the 60s. Those deficits in turn paved the way to the "stagflation" (stagnation + inflation) of the 70s.
One other observation: the high-water mark of the American labor movement was in 1955, when one-third of the U.S. workforce belonged to unions. After that, unions gradually lost membership, although years passed before folks noticed. You'll hear people blame Reagan for killing unions, but he didn't become President until 1981. By then, unions had been leaking members for 25 years.
has all but forced me to enter my input here. You all know what else the U.S.(or somebody from the U.S.)contributed to Japanese business, don't you? Dr.Deming went there to Toyota to "help them tool up, or start out, or what have you".
How much of Toyota's success was because of Deming's work there? That would require a Japanese Toyota employee(probably retired about now)to give us the truth on that matter. But there are those who will say that this business philosophy from Deming helped Toyota of Japan immensely.
We at Boeing dabbled in his teachings in the late 80's-early 90's, then chucked it for lack of a profitable application of it.
My interpretation of that is that Boeing has so many of it's own Chiefs that anybody else's input nary has a fighting chance. After 20 years there I would have to agree with myself on that one.
Dr. W. Edward Deming was instrumental. I had a class in college which spent basically a whole semester studying his work. I still have "The Deming Management Method", it's in a bookshelf somewhere in my office.
He basically gave them the blue print to reducing variation by implementing statistical analysis, quality and process improvement and the idea of working with suppliers instead of just beating them up. Most US companies in the US didn't listen until they were decades behind.
There has to be a mutual cooperation and working together for a common cause between Labor and Capital if this country is able to sustain its economic status in the world market.
Absolutely!!! (Rocky, he 's making some sense) But we can't sit here and point fingers at one side or the other. There has to be honest to goodness cooperation and good faith negotiations. If either side gets lax, the other is sure to take advantage, so we must remain vigilant as well. Hell, this IS America, and we can overcome any obsticles thrown our way if we work together.
Rocky won't (or isn't able to) accept my statement re need for mutual cooperation. He dismisses it as "libertarian utopia hyperbole". (Post 1324--spelling corrections are mine) What I said is a hard truth, and you are absolutely correct in your statement "Hell, this IS America, and we can overcome any obstacles thrown our way if we work together". However, if the Rockylees of this world have their way, it's possible we may have lost the wisdom and the will to do so.
I think Rocky is more open minded than you think. It's just that when we "union guys" hear commments to the effect that we have no rights, and if it weren't for the capitalists, we'd have no jobs, and we serve at their leisure, or if we go on strike, we should all be fired, we get defensive. That makes us sound like slaves.
I've gone on strike before, and wasn't happy about it, but you DO what you HAVE to do. All a strike is is a negotiating tool. The comments made to the media (IMHO) on both sides (in this day and age) are just gradnstanding. I believe that both sides know what they can "afford" to give up, and just like haggling the price on a car, try to get the best deal. Sometimes, you just just have to walk away. I believe that the days of MONTHS long strikes are all but in the past. NEITHER side can afford the bad press. Once the cooler heads prevail, a deal can be struck.
The bad press is used by the politicians and the businesses against the union. Note that the animosity shown by some here is probably based on media influence more than direct knowledge of quality of union workers.
Note that the animosity shown by some here is probably based on media influence more than direct knowledge of union quality of workers.
Sure. My point is that, unlike 50 yrs ago when there was an "I'll show YOU" attitude on both sides, It's more like an agent negotiating a contract for a sports figure now. Both sides know what they are willing to accept, and the first one to blink "loses". Even if it means holding out (a strike in our terms) a short while. Either way, in general, it's no big deal anymore. Despite what the doomsayers wrote in here, GM and Chrysler are as healthy today as they were before the strikes. We could argue healthier.
Our tax dollars went for a lot of that reconstruction. How dumb could we be ?
Not so. Germany was a Marshall Plan beneficiary in the late 1940s, but it was required to spend most of the aid dollars on US-manufactured goods. Japan received almost no US aid beyond food donations during the years immediately after the war. The turning point for Japan was the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. Our forces used Japan as a staging area. We bought lots of the non-lethal stuff (blankets, shoelaces, etc.) that an army in the field needs, & this jump-started the Japanese economy.
He [Reagan] sure passed a lot of anti-labor laws to prevent them from making a come back.
Lots of dialog going on here. Glad to see it has been somewhat civil. The biggest issue facing the Big 3 and the UAW seems to be Health Care. We have had discussions on the politics thread as to how well does socialized medicine work in Canada. You are living there, so what is your take? Hopefully you have not needed it.
1. Japan is indeed very grateful for the assistance given by the US after the war (far, far less than what is being spent on Iraq, by the way....), and the teachings of Demings and Drucker (but these were available to US companies too). That is the reason Japan feels closer to the US than any other Asian country. 2. At the same time, Japan (together with China now) is the biggest supplier of credit to the US, which funds the current US lifestyle. So for the US, it has been a good investment.
He [Reagan] sure passed a lot of anti-labor laws to prevent them from making a come back.
Such as?
Ronald Reagan's War on Labor
Amidst the continued outpouring of praise for Ronald Reagan, let's not forget that he was one of the most anti-labor presidents in U.S. history, a role model for the virulently anti-labor George W. Bush.
Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, which almost invariably have opposed their election. But until Reagan, no GOP president had dared to challenge labor's firm legal standing, gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s.
Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress -- as people to be fought with at times, but also as people to be bargained with at other times. But Reagan engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor.
He had little apparent reason to fear labor politically, with opinion polls at the time showing that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans and that nearly half of those who belonged to the unions had voted for him in 1980 and again in 1984.
Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.
Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.
The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
Their suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged labor-management relations deep into the jungle
THE WAR AT HOME: THE CORPORATE OFFENSIVE FROM RONALD REAGAN TO GEORGE W. BUSH.
It's a 534 pp. account of the attack on workers and unions in America from 1980 to the present. The book chronicles in detail what has happened to workers? wages, jobs, healthcare, pensions, taxes, and social security, and offers an assessment of the crisis in the Democratic Party and the recent AFL-CIO split and its aftermath. It includes proposals for change and for the reorganization of the trade union movement to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Rocky, the author is Jack Rasmus--he wrote it in 2005. Here' a quick bio:
Jack Rasmus is on the National Executive Board of the National Writers Union, uaw 1981, afl-cio. He is also chair of the San Francisco Bay area chapter of the Writers Union. A local union president and organizer for many years, Jack owns a creative arts production company dedicated to resurrecting the traditions of American workers and their unions.
Well when they were fixing to get raked through the coals on their contract and they were left with no choice but to take a stand. A friend of mine was one of them that lost his job, and he like I was not tearing up the day that bigot died. :mad:
Heck, I think I mourned Nixon more than I did Reagan. Heck, I mourned Ford more than Ronnie. The current guy will probably have to be buried like George Pullman when he goes. George Pullman was so hated at the time of his death, he was buried in 6 feet of concrete embedded with criss-crossed railroad ties for fear that somebody would exhume and desecrate his body.
>Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters.
Sounds like the concept of not employing anyone remotely associated with unions in the past or someone with family connections or living in a union rich area like Anderson/Muncie, Indiana.
Comments
Here the average CEO makes 500 times the average worker. That is reason for discontent within the working class. I think there have been revolutions in other countries over such a wide gap between the haves and have nots. Not likely here as the haves convinced the have nots that they did not need to own a gun.
Good point !!!!
I guess we could attack the wealthy with day old Krispy Kreme donuts.
LOL :P
-Rocky
The article cited an interview with President Bush, who attributed income inequality to "skills gaps" among various classes.
So the root of the problem is a "skills gap" :confuse:
Well I know a lot of pople with "skills" who are making a lot less than they were just 5 years ago. You noticed he offered no solution.
-Rocky
-Rocky
When government at any level talks about "investing" my tax dollars, I check my pocket to make sure that my wallet is still there. Back in the early 90s, lefty entitlement-lovers began to substitute the word "invest" for "spend" to make the idea of big, bloated government more palatable to voters. I like to remind my socialist friends that governments don't invest -- they spend. Only the private sector can invest.
Taxpayers would be better off if states agreed to stop competing for businesses by throwing money at prospective employers who, in many cases, have learned to game the system. I'd rather see my state become more business friendly by lowering taxes across the board. That's the best way to generate more jobs.
That's exactly right. The businesses learned that they could get "free plants" and ancillary items all paid for by taxpayers instead of their investment. Politicians love to use these tactics for bragging rights, or kickback rights, to use for future campaigns.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.247wallst.com/2007/10/wal-mart-wmt-lo.html
The way she has been talking, you'd thing if an employee hurts themselves on the job, the employer should take them out back and shoot them.
The vast majority of union members are decent folks who just quietly 'go along' because they have no other choice--they belong and support their union because they have to. Talk to these folks away from the shop floor and they will be the first to tell you they don't always agree with the foolish games those 'noismakers' play.
True, again. In some ways, when you vote to go one way as a body, even if YOU didn't vote that way, youaccept the body's vote for good and bad. If enough people are concerned w/ the way their union is going, they may voice their opinions at a union meeting. In this respect, they are no different than any other organization (like a volunteer fire comany). Organizational business is conducted at these meetings, and what the membership votes for, is what must be done.
Think of it this way: If you voted for John Kerry in the last election, do you see him, or George W. as your president?? I voted for Kerry, and W is my prez. Love him or hate him (hate him!!!), I will defend him as my prez.
Before he says it....
Marsha is a he. Try Bob if it helps you to remember. Lots of us got caught on that.
I'm more or less with you the rest of the way.
daveXXXX (sorry, I lost the 4 digits after your name) "Will Honda workers get a pension?"...I do not believe that company pensions are the future, I think it is 401K's and the like...a pension, like Delta's or whoever, can be obliterated by bankruptcy, whereas a 401K, with matching employer funds, may be much more stable, and, I believe, invested in almost any vehicle you want, and can be left to your heirs if you die...it also means that YOU are now more responsible for your future than the company, but who can be against personal responsibility???
Whoever made the comment (I get lost when responding to multiple posts, no insult intended and no slight is meant, I just forgot who posted what, but I do remember the topic, sort of) about workers who WON'T work for you...that is always a possibility, but, imo, highly unlikely...
Most of the import auto plants set up shop in an area that is probably rural and probably has a prevailing wage structure far below what the automakers will offer, so I would bet that they have 10 applicants for every available position, meaning that employees are ALWAYS available, whereas employers can pick and choose where to go...I always come down on the rights of the employer, simply because if the worker does not like the policies or the environment, simply leave and go where it is more to your liking, but no employee has any right to change what the capitalist has established, simply go elsewhere...stop trying to change what somebody else owns, and go where the world is more to your liking...what is so hard with that???
BTW, while I can absolutely understand eliminating anybody with "union" in their blood, I cannot tolerate discrimination on the basis of race...black, white, tall, short (assuming that they can physically handle the job), discrimination on the basis of anything other than a union past (as that WILL result in an uninhabitable workplace) is intolerable...
Rocky: silverfox does seem to have a point...you are only tryng to prolong a past that is slowly (rapidly?) eroding away, and you sound like someone reminiscing about the "good old days of the 1970s" when the union became the dictators...feel free to enjoy your memories, but the real world is anything but the way you view it...wake up and see the new reality...it is now cheaper for GM to move a plant to Mexico if the union wants too much, so the UAW will protect the jobs, but of a population that is getting smaller and smaller, until they only have one last UAW member's job to protect, and he is the one that will turn off the light switch when he walks out of the last Big 3 auto plant...
Your preachings remind me of Karl Marx, but, luckily, those theories only live on in liberal universities and in the memories of old union members as they have fleeting recollections of the past thru their senile moments...:):):)
How about joining up with the modern capitalists and move forward about 100 years???...you would be welcome...except in my company...:):):):):)
As much as I value the pension I'll be getting I tell my kids to be ready to put that money aside in a 401K. I mourn the passing of the old way of life but one has to move on.
It's unfortunately sad that both of you are blind to what's going on in the world and are willing to just roll over and die for the greedy capitalist that have ruined this country.
You both seem to think that my way of thinking has ruined the united states. Quite the opposite !!!
The unions I support are as pro-american as people in this country come. They are not traitors whom have spent special interest money to elect traitors who give tax breaks to off-shore there business. :mad: The pseudo-capitalist of this country are traitors. They have zero respect for our flag, and the people who died for it. I was watching a Pearl Harbor, video on the history channel yesterday and it was a reminder of how far out of touch with reality we have become. :sick:
The Japanese, may not have won WWII but they are winning the economic war. They got to be laughing at how dumb our people are. The Europeans, have to be doing the same. We are the only 1st world nation that does not protect it's business and workers from unfair trade. China, is destroying our economy and because another buck can be squeezed out of a poor chinamen who is virtually a legal slave to our greedy corporate interest you will support it because it's a free market. The greedy capitalist are megalomaniacs and need to be stopped. I might not have the money, nor power to stop them by myself but I will not let my voice and vote not be heard.
I and my father talked about the United States, for a couple of hours yesterday. Dad, talked about the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and present. He said he never thought we would lose all our good paying manufactoring jobs like we have.
Silverfox5: So Rockylee, you're seeing a hint of future in company/union relationships--you probably won't like what you see and will call folks like Hargrove 'traitors'---but it's the way of the future, like it or not.
Hargrove, is not a traitor but like the UAW, he really had no choice in the matter. When your employer has won absolute power it's cave in a little or lose everything. I believe one day this country and other country's citizens will shed blood and fight back against the greed of the select few. Past history shows communism will rise to power. :sick: Hopefully things will not get that bad and socialism, will set it's roots in this country. Capitalism, without a leash will destroy this country. It's already leaving flesh wounds for many !!!!
-Rocky
In reality, you're one of them; you're part of a capitalistic system, but you fail to accept that reality.
Stop kidding yourself!
Please don't tell us that you never look for the 'best deal', or 'lowest price', etc., in your economic dealings with the world!
You can't have it both ways--that 'best deal', that right job, full job protection, good pay, generous lifetime pension, full health care, that food, that shelter, those consumer goods, free access to the market place, and so on you say we have a 'right' to, without paying for it. (and that means more sacrifice than just money!)
These things you seek aren't just there for the taking.
And guess what--the rest of the world wants those same things, and is prepared to do whatever is necessary to get them---just like you do!!
Our ancestors created this nation on a capitalistic model, and that model has evolved, sustained, and developed since its origins. Capitalism isn't without its flaws, but it's here and won't likely disappear for a long time to come.
There is no 'perfect economic system'.
Your analogy about Communism rising to power is notable.
Communism, my friend, is just another derivative of capitalism--it's capitalism run by the state--"State Capitalism".
You want that?? Evidently many of those with that system have learned it isn't perfect either, and moved to another system---like ours!! And now they're eating our lunch!
Even China is evolving toward a free market economic system!
You're right about WW2--that was the last time this country rose together as a unified nation and sacrificed much to achieve something worthwhile.
It's been downhill ever since--but it isn't the fault of just capitalists, the government, the UAW, other countries, all those you and others place blame on, and so on.
It's as much your fault as it is any other issue or cause.
What is happening between the CAW and Magna Corp. is the future direction for Capital and Labor--ours to embrace if we collectively have the will.
There has to be a mutual cooperation and working together for a common cause between Labor and Capital if this country is able to sustain its economic status in the world market.
You really should have passion for that objective.
Evidently you do not, because you in fact, are the one who is blind to its reality!
It is perfectly clear now why are having difficulty finding employment. Blaming all those other 'causes' is wrong headed. The opportunities are there, and the onus is yours and yours alone.
You really can't change others, but you can change yourself!
Communism, my friend, is just another derivative of capitalism--it's capitalism run by the state--"State Capitalism".
You want that??
No, but I would like our government to evolve into something like modern day Europe, only better and a little more nationalistic.
-Rocky
We'll probably see you expressing a new set of passionate bitchings about 'It' if 'It' ever happens!
I've lived extensively in Europe. (Western, not Eastern Bloc)
There are many facets of life there which I admire--one big one is their sense of history.
There are differences in culture, but European economic systems aren't much different than ours.
Europe has been divided by cultural differences over history, but that has changed--hence the EEC.
When the EEC works out the few remaining cultural differences which hinder its full economic potential--all I can say is 'Look out North Americans"
An economically unified Europe has the potential to send us back to the dark ages! They are definitely moving in that direction.
That said, you DO NOT want Europe to give up on nationalistic culture too quickly!!
-Rocky
Rockylee, you know nothing of what you're talking about!
Competition is as rigorous and ruthless, if not more so, there than it is here!
The most common form of European business model is a "Cash Cow" philosophy.
That my friend, simply means 'bleed as much capital as you can out of the business, and when there's nothing left to bleed, move on'.
It's a cutthroat place to do business!!
A classic example is the purchase and ultimate fire sale of Chrysler by Daimler. Daimler bled Chrysler dry, and then dumped it.
I know nothing about life in Europe. I may not of lived their myself but I have read a great deal about Europe, and it's history as I'm European & Scandinavian decent. My father was born in Germany, and my grand parents lived their for about 3 or 4 years when my grandfather was in the U.S. Army. I also have a Cousin, who lived years over in Europe, so I feel my knowledge on the subject is up to par to have at least an opinion.
Competition is as rigorous and ruthless, if not more so, there than it is here!
Yes, but you are missing my main point. The Europeans, prefer to win using their neighbors at home instead of shipping operations over sea's often seen here.
The most common form of European business model is a "Cash Cow" philosophy.
The Europeans, yes specialize in high-tech fields where they can pretty much get their asking price andmake a lotof money. In Germany, they engineer some of the finest machines in the world. They charge a U.S. corporation a large sum of money for that Equipment. The same goes for their automobiles. The union workers get a fair slice of the pie and work 32-35 hours a week with 6 weeks of vacation, every holiday and weekend off thus they shairin the wealth of the business.
That my friend, simply means 'bleed as much capital as you can out of the business, and when there's nothing left to bleed, move on'.
I don't buy that. The Europeans like the Japanese, look long-term. Working in Europe, a employee is basically gauranteed a job for life. They will tariff their competition. They are big trade protectionist and their model should be implemented here in the U.S.
That might save a few more jobs and help grow the economy. Ross Perot's, theory of the negatives of "Free Market" capitalism has been proven correct. He said it would grow the economy at a rapid rate for about 10 years and the downward slide would hit.
It's a cutthroat place to do business!!
It's human nature to want to succeeed. I believe they are very competitive but they don't lose touch where they came from and aren't afraid to sacrifice for the good of their country and employees that depend on the company to have a prosperous and happy life.
A classic example is the purchase and ultimate fire sale of Chrysler by Daimler. Daimler bled Chrysler dry, and then dumped it.
LOL, now you do not know what you are talking about. :P
The Germans lost there butts on Chrysler. They paid several billion more than what they sold it for. The main reason behind the sale was Chrysler, was dragging down Diamler Benz. Mercedes, left behind an array of R&D products and plans for future use. I would say the U.S. company (Chrysler) sucked the German, company dry like a leach.
-Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sometimes I wonder if the whole rush to outsource was not just a way to destroy the unions which are traditionally found in light and heavy industries. I wonder what the United States would be like had our industries not gone overseas.
Would there be a labor shortage?
Would there be massive inflation?
Would unions have too much power?
Would the U.S. be as polluted as China presently is?
Would there be proserity for all who were willing to work?
Would there be a lot more economic equality?
Would there be more racial harmony?
Would our cities be safer?
Would our educational system be better or worse?
Would there be no healthcare crisis?
Would there be a massive influx of legal immigrants without adverse effects?
Would illegal immigration diminish as there would be no need to exploit them?
Would there be no trade deficit?
Would the stock market soar or stagnate?
Would there be no Federal budget deficit?
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's
because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
Exactly. It was a staggering anomaly. At the end of 1945, every industrial power in the world had been obliterated or impoverished by two colossal wars and and an equally colossal economic implosion between. Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, everyone... except the United States and Canada. The US and Canada accounted for something like 70% of the world's economic output in those days.
Well, time went on and everyone else rebuilt and got their own economies going, the US-brokered Bretton Woods agreements broke down, the North American economy ossified and the old patterns broke apart, and eventually we end up where we are now: instead of one huge fish in a small pond we have a dozen big fishes in the same pond, and those other fish aren't going to starve themselves so Rocky's dad can have a new Cadillac, a bass boat, and a cottage on the lake.
Those post war years were a huge economic boost to the US economy, whereas most other industrialized countries' economies were in shambles.
Today's world is a much different place, economically, and the rules of the game are completely different.
Whether we like it or not, the US economy's sustainability is dependent to a large degree on many other countries.
We are in competition with those same countries for a shrinking supply of needed resources now as well.
I'm a so-called leading edge baby boomer - a child of the 50s & 60s. My personal observation is that the golden years ended in 1965, when the Vietnam war buildup got underway, & not in 1973. LBJ's conviction that the U.S. could afford to pay both for a major war & for his entitlement programs without raising taxes led to massive Federal budget deficits by the end of the 60s. Those deficits in turn paved the way to the "stagflation" (stagnation + inflation) of the 70s.
One other observation: the high-water mark of the American labor movement was in 1955, when one-third of the U.S. workforce belonged to unions. After that, unions gradually lost membership, although years passed before folks noticed. You'll hear people blame Reagan for killing unions, but he didn't become President until 1981. By then, unions had been leaking members for 25 years.
Our tax dollars went for a lot of that reconstruction. How dumb could we be ? :sick:
You'll hear people blame Reagan for killing unions
He sure passed a lot of anti-labor laws to prevent them from making a come back. :mad:
-Rocky
How much of Toyota's success was because of Deming's work there? That would require a Japanese Toyota employee(probably retired about now)to give us the truth on that matter. But there are those who will say that this business philosophy from Deming helped Toyota of Japan immensely.
We at Boeing dabbled in his teachings in the late 80's-early 90's, then chucked it for lack of a profitable application of it.
My interpretation of that is that Boeing has so many of it's own Chiefs that anybody else's input nary has a fighting chance. After 20 years there I would have to agree with myself on that one.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Dr. W. Edward Deming was instrumental. I had a class in college which spent basically a whole semester studying his work. I still have "The Deming Management Method", it's in a bookshelf somewhere in my office.
He basically gave them the blue print to reducing variation by implementing statistical analysis, quality and process improvement and the idea of working with suppliers instead of just beating them up. Most US companies in the US didn't listen until they were decades behind.
Absolutely!!! (Rocky, he 's making some sense) But we can't sit here and point fingers at one side or the other. There has to be honest to goodness cooperation and good faith negotiations. If either side gets lax, the other is sure to take advantage, so we must remain vigilant as well.
Hell, this IS America, and we can overcome any obsticles thrown our way if we work together.
He dismisses it as "libertarian utopia hyperbole". (Post 1324--spelling corrections are mine)
What I said is a hard truth, and you are absolutely correct in your statement "Hell, this IS America, and we can overcome any obstacles thrown our way if we work together".
However, if the Rockylees of this world have their way, it's possible we may have lost the wisdom and the will to do so.
I've gone on strike before, and wasn't happy about it, but you DO what you HAVE to do. All a strike is is a negotiating tool. The comments made to the media (IMHO) on both sides (in this day and age) are just gradnstanding. I believe that both sides know what they can "afford" to give up, and just like haggling the price on a car, try to get the best deal. Sometimes, you just just have to walk away. I believe that the days of MONTHS long strikes are all but in the past. NEITHER side can afford the bad press. Once the cooler heads prevail, a deal can be struck.
The bad press is used by the politicians and the businesses against the union. Note that the animosity shown by some here is probably based on media influence more than direct knowledge of quality of union workers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-Rocky
Sure. My point is that, unlike 50 yrs ago when there was an "I'll show YOU" attitude on both sides, It's more like an agent negotiating a contract for a sports figure now. Both sides know what they are willing to accept, and the first one to blink "loses". Even if it means holding out (a strike in our terms) a short while. Either way, in general, it's no big deal anymore.
Despite what the doomsayers wrote in here, GM and Chrysler are as healthy today as they were before the strikes. We could argue healthier.
Not so. Germany was a Marshall Plan beneficiary in the late 1940s, but it was required to spend most of the aid dollars on US-manufactured goods. Japan received almost no US aid beyond food donations during the years immediately after the war. The turning point for Japan was the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. Our forces used Japan as a staging area. We bought lots of the non-lethal stuff (blankets, shoelaces, etc.) that an army in the field needs, & this jump-started the Japanese economy.
He [Reagan] sure passed a lot of anti-labor laws to prevent them from making a come back.
Such as?
1. Japan is indeed very grateful for the assistance given by the US after the war (far, far less than what is being spent on Iraq, by the way....), and the teachings of Demings and Drucker (but these were available to US companies too). That is the reason Japan feels closer to the US than any other Asian country.
2. At the same time, Japan (together with China now) is the biggest supplier of credit to the US, which funds the current US lifestyle. So for the US, it has been a good investment.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Such as?
Ronald Reagan's War on Labor
Amidst the continued outpouring of praise for Ronald Reagan, let's not forget that he was one of the most anti-labor presidents in U.S. history, a role model for the virulently anti-labor George W. Bush.
Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, which almost invariably have opposed their election. But until Reagan, no GOP president had dared to challenge labor's firm legal standing, gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s.
Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress -- as people to be fought with at times, but also as people to be bargained with at other times. But Reagan engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor.
He had little apparent reason to fear labor politically, with opinion polls at the time showing that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans and that nearly half of those who belonged to the unions had voted for him in 1980 and again in 1984.
Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.
Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.
The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.
Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.
Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.
The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
Their suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged labor-management relations deep into the jungle
-Rocky
THE WAR AT HOME: THE CORPORATE OFFENSIVE FROM RONALD REAGAN TO GEORGE W. BUSH.
It's a 534 pp. account of the attack on workers and unions in America from 1980 to the present. The book chronicles in detail what has happened to workers? wages, jobs, healthcare, pensions, taxes, and social security, and offers an assessment of the crisis in the Democratic Party and the recent AFL-CIO split and its aftermath. It includes proposals for change and for the reorganization of the trade union movement to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
-Rocky
I'll meet you at the 'politics' forum for my take on the Canadian health care system.
Suffice to say it isn't without its flaws.
Here' a quick bio:
Jack Rasmus is on the National Executive Board of the National Writers Union, uaw 1981, afl-cio. He is also chair of the San Francisco Bay area chapter of the Writers Union. A local union president and organizer for many years, Jack owns a creative arts production company dedicated to
resurrecting the traditions of American workers and their unions.
-Rocky
Sounds like the concept of not employing anyone remotely associated with unions in the past or someone with family connections or living in a union rich area like Anderson/Muncie, Indiana.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-Rocky