What happens if America loses its unions???

\\()// said:
Really?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
Click to expand...

Okay...... So now..... Showing me a list of states by income, and making the point that northern union workers get paid more than southerners, relates to the conversation about where our manufacturing sector jobs are going.... HOW, again???

You really do need some help with this, you aren't seeming to follow the conversation at all. We were all talking about jobs, and why we don't have them. I made the point that unions have priced American labor out of the market, and the jobs have gone elsewhere.... and your 'brilliant' rebuttal, is to show me how much more money union workers make than southerners. What a fucking GENIUS!
 
Dixie said:
I made the point that unions have priced American labor out of the market, and the jobs have gone elsewhere.... and your 'brilliant' rebuttal, is to show me how much more money union workers make than southerners. What a fucking GENIUS!
Click to expand...

Where did the list cite "union workers", Dixie? Point it out.

Aren't union workers only around 12% of the total workforce?

Did "unions" cause the flight of the textile industry from the Deep South to Asia?
 
Hey crewcut... you should be more concerned and alarmed at what Tom posted! Only 12% of us are union! That means 88% of those who are working, must obviously be children in sweat shops being forced into slavery by greedy corporate 'mastahs' who drive them until they die, feeding them lead paint chips! Seems like you'd be more concerned with that, than whether southerners make as much as northerners.

For the record, you'd have to pay me a helluva lot more to live up north, and even then, it would have to be in a state like Montana or Wyoming, I don't know of another northern state I could tolerate. I'll gladly take less money to get to live in one of the most beautiful places on the planet.
 
\\()// said:
Where did the list cite "union workers", Dixie? Point it out.
Click to expand...

Point out your point you were trying to interject into the other point of the other conversation? I'm confused!!

Aren't union workers only around 12% of the total workforce?
Click to expand...

That's what Tom says. But as I pointed out, and you've not refuted, the unions drive labor cost across the board. Whenever unions increase pay, the non-unions have to follow suit, or risk losing their workers or turning union. So it doesn't matter that it's a mere 12%, that's enough to influence the cost of labor everywhere.

Did "unions" cause the flight of the textile industry from the Deep South to Asia?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, kind of, they did. But the textile industry, let's face it... there are some jobs it's just better for us to let someone else do. Textiles is one of them. Have you ever seen the inside of a garment factory? Do you know what it's like to work standing up on a concrete floor all day, or operating a sewing machine? If we could afford to make textiles and pay people union wages, it would be different, but that's not the case. Consumers won't pay $200 for a pair of blue jeans, and that is what they would have to cost, to pay union workers to make them in the US.

The textile industry moved out of the south when the unions moved in. Fuller Callaway was one of the last big textile producers in the south. Through the 40s, 50s, and 60s, he built an empire, Callaway Mills, which consisted of dozens of "mill villages" he personally built... yes, he built entire communities, houses, stores, recreational facilities, infirmaries, etc. for the people he hired to work in his mills. They made a decent wage for the time, not exceptional, but adequate... and they had all these perks afforded to mill villagers. In the 70s, the northern textile unions made a huge push to unionize the south, and the result was... Callaway and the few others who remained, pulled up stakes and called it a day. Now, old Fuller, lived out the rest of his days at his mansion, with everything he wanted. He even donated his well-established recreation centers to the city and his softball/baseball/soccer complexes, to the college. The jobs, however, were GONE... killed by the unions.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
We saw a picket line yesterday at the Egg and I... So, we had to go eat there.

It was good.
Click to expand...

A few years ago; PITA was protesting the eating of chicken, at ASU.
I didn't hear about it, until it was over; but I would have liked to go and hand out some KFC or Church's. :D
 
Dixie said:
...unions drive labor cost across the board. Whenever unions increase pay, the non-unions have to follow suit, or risk losing their workers or turning union. So it doesn't matter that it's a mere 12%, that's enough to influence the cost of labor everywhere.
Click to expand...

Produce some evidence.

Dixie said:
Well yeah, kind of, they did. But the textile industry, let's face it... there are some jobs it's just better for us to let someone else do. Textiles is one of them. Have you ever seen the inside of a garment factory? Do you know what it's like to work standing up on a concrete floor all day, or operating a sewing machine? If we could afford to make textiles and pay people union wages, it would be different, but that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Any proof?

Dixie said:
Consumers won't pay $200 for a pair of blue jeans...
Click to expand...

Really?

The latest luxury item comes in straight leg or boot cut, stonewashed or torn.

While many women--and some men--are willing to pay as much as $145 without giving it a second thought, increasingly, designer labels are offering jeans ranging from $300 to as much as $4,000.

For those who want exclusivity, there are custom couture jeans with prices that are even higher.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/29/most-expensive-jeans-cx_sy_1130feat_ls.html


Dixie said:
The textile industry moved out of the south when the unions moved in.
Click to expand...


Operation Dixie was the name of the post-war campaign by the Congress of Industrial Organizations to unionize industry in the Southern United States, particularly the textile industry.

The campaign ran from 1946 to 1953 in 12 Southern states and was undertaken in order to consolidate gains made by the trade union movement in the Northern United States during the war and block the status of the South as a "non-union" low-wage haven to which businesses could relocate.


Operation Dixie failed largely because of Jim Crow laws and the deep-seated racial strife in the South which supported them and made it difficult for black workers and poor whites to engage in the solidarity needed for a union drive to succeed.

As well, the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act made it easier for southern US states in particular to obstruct union drives by hampering the right to strike and allowing states to ban closed shops.


In the long-term, the failure of Operation Dixie to end the South's status as a low-wage, non-union haven impeded the ability of the union movement to maintain its strength in North and was a contributing factor in the decline of the American union movement in the second half of the twentieth century as unions were unable to prevent businesses from holding back wage increases by either moving to the South or threatening to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dixie
 
signalmankenneth said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...s-its-unions/2012/06/12/gJQA1d7UYV_print.html



wisconsin-war-on-unions-what-now-328-sm-color-72-dpi-.jpg
Click to expand...

you probably find this image troubling, but I find this image inspiration. I hope it's true.
 
Dixie said:
Is your job available? Then we don't have it, do we?

Man, the did the fucking retard factor go up or something?
Click to expand...

billy doesn't count as "we?"

you will twist anything just so you can feel as if you aren't wrong, huh? too bad you sound like a retard saying the above
 
G R I N D said:
billy doesn't count as "we?"

you will twist anything just so you can feel as if you aren't wrong, huh? too bad you sound like a retard saying the above
Click to expand...

Okay, when I say: "The reason we don't have any manufacturing sector jobs..." it is implied in context of the conversation that I mean, NEW available jobs. Aside from being a retarded idiot, there is no other way you could understand the context of the statement, because, obviously, in a nation of 350 million people, we would certainly have a manufacturing sector job of some kind, somewhere. I am sorry if you are so retarded that you understood me to say that we didn't have any manufacturing jobs in America at all, that was certainly never what I meant to imply, and didn't think I did.

I have not twisted anything, and don't mind admitting when I am wrong (unlike you), but I'll be damned if I am going to pretend I am wrong so some punk can feel good about themselves. If you are going to "prove me wrong" you'll have to actually PROVE ME WRONG, else I am going to contest it. Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
Is your job available? Then we don't have it, do we?

Man, the did the fucking retard factor go up or something?
Click to expand...

So because I have my job, it doesn't exist?

You're incredible idiocy aside, plenty of manufacturing to go around. Hell, just about every shop in a 10 mile radius is hiing. Now if you wanted to argue about a huge generational skills gap being part of the cause for some out sourcing, I might agree. But unions? Not that much. Spending millions shipping stuff across the globe doesn't eem like a good way to save money that unions are supposed to be bleeding.
 
MORE GENIES! said:
So because I have my job, it doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

It doesn't exist for someone looking for a job, does it? That's the context of what I had said; that manufacturing sector jobs have gone away.

You're incredible idiocy aside, plenty of manufacturing to go around. Hell, just about every shop in a 10 mile radius is hiing. Now if you wanted to argue about a huge generational skills gap being part of the cause for some out sourcing, I might agree. But unions? Not that much. Spending millions shipping stuff across the globe doesn't eem like a good way to save money that unions are supposed to be bleeding.
Click to expand...

Well, you are just plain wrong. Jobs in manufacturing in America have been on the decline for quite some time now. There aren't plenty to go around, there are fewer this year than last, and next year, there will be even fewer. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has all this information, if you care to educate yourself on the subject, but I would refrain from calling people "idiot."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top