People affected by credit crunch!

[BryanM]

Damn companies making people fat.

Damn teacher's unions not letting me consider a career in teaching.

Damn health care companies gorging chumps who'll pay anything to Not Die.

Damn anti-pot ads driving kids to try meth.

Damn Free Money fiends screwing me out of thousands of dollars. I could have bought a lot of ice cream with that money.

[BulletMagnet]

Didn't the teacher's union get in trouble awhile back for shooting down incentives and bonuses for science and math teachers?

Got a link? Considering how in most cases unions are fighting to get their members more incentives and the like instead of less (or at least stop the management from taking away what they already have), this sounds weird to me...

[The n00b]

Didn't the teacher's union get in trouble awhile back for shooting down incentives and bonuses for science and math teachers?

Got a link? Considering how in most cases unions are fighting to get their members more incentives and the like instead of less (or at least stop the management from taking away what they already have), this sounds weird to me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02110.html

Offering higher pay in some subjects would depart from the existing system, which is based on experience and educational credits. The proposal has been controversial, with some teachers unions worried that different pay scales would encourage discord on faculties.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_ ... _teachers/

The Massachusetts Teachers Association, the state's largest teachers union, said it agrees with paying teachers more for handling additional duties, such as mentoring. But the union opposes merit pay, such as tying teachers' pay to improving test scores, or paying math and science teachers more than others.

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl ... 08/1922214

[Acid King]

You're right that not every criticism of the UAW is necessarily meant to apply to the entire working class, but in many cases I'd argue that they are - the auto unions (and teachers' unions) in particular are held up as "warning examples" of what happens when you give the proles an inch of breathing room. "They'll do ANYthing to avoid accountability, and are just moving toward their Commie ideal of getting paid for doing nothing." Don't tell me that you haven't observed (and continue to observe) this on NUMEROUS occasions.

See that's bullshit though, because you're equating unions with working class. Unions represent only a small portion of working people. It's stupid for anyone to make that connection based on criticisms of specific unions. In my experiences, I've seen more people blindly defend unions like the UAW and act as if unions should be immune to criticism because of this bullshit perception of unions as great defenders of the working man.

Getting rid of the positions which exist solely to look for loopholes that can be used to deny customers coverage they've paid for would be a good start, I think. Not to mention greater emphasis on preventive care (including better educating the public on health and economic matters), which is far cheaper than after-the-fact brand-name wonder drug treatments (but far less profitable, which of course trumps everything else).

Please. The government is going to get the same bills insurance companies receive now. That's not going to change. People are still going to be lazy, unhealthy sloths. That's not going to change. There's pretty much no evidence to support the notion that simply nationalizing health care would make costs go down. It's a fuck load more complicated than your simplistic assertions.

[Michaelm]

without considering exactly WHY health care costs are so high

It's because health care exists and people getting older and getting lots of diseases that comes with old age that gets treated as well.
They used to blame the smokers but ofcourse people not getting so old cost far less on healthcare. It all makes perfect sense when you think about it but unfortunately the major players providing health care are in the business because of the money aspect and not because of the health care itself so don't expect this to change for quite some bit.
Also governments get screwed by companies over and over and the governments seem to really like it so there's another waste that the public pays for anyway.

[BulletMagnet]

The Massachusetts Teachers Association, the state's largest teachers union, said it agrees with paying teachers more for handling additional duties, such as mentoring. But the union opposes merit pay, such as tying teachers' pay to improving test scores, or paying math and science teachers more than others.

This, I think, is the linchpin of this issue - nobody in the union is against paying extra to people who do extra work. However, trying to make up for deficiencies in a particular area by arbitrarily increasing spending ("throwing money at a problem," as it's often put), without paying the least bit of attention to the underlying cause of those deficiencies, both in that specific area and the profession as a whole (as Acid King mentioned in regards to health care), is a road to nowhere.

As for "merit pay", what exactly is a good scale to use? Tying them to test scores (about the best quantifiable data available in these areas) simply leads to the states (which, under NCLB, can create their own questions and pass/fail standards, with no need to meet any sort of national, let alone international, standard) making the tests easier, lowering the bar for a "passing" grade, and in some cases actively cheating to increase passing rates, either by not allowing lower-performing students to take them or by actively changing incorrect answers. Of course, this doesn't even take into account the costs of "teaching to the test" and nothing else. Is a handful of tests (or sometimes a single one) really a particularly good indicator of a teacher's worth as an educator, especially when s/he is under constant pressure from administrators to spend more and more time on test material in order to increase the school's/district's standing, since that's the only thing being looked at? And if we don't use test scores, what DO we use?

The "accountability" debate is FAR more complicated than the Michelle Rhee types make it seem - effective teaching is incredibly hard to measure in the first place, and one teacher's effectiveness can greatly vary from student to student. Are there some utterly unqualified teachers out there? Of course there are. Does this mean that the entire profession is full of idiots who don't want the curtain drawn back on their incompetence? Sorry, but as much as anti-union types like to suggest it, it ain't true.

this bullshit perception of unions as great defenders of the working man.

I don't agree with every single thing they do, but frankly unions are about the only thing out there that offers working people anything remotely resembling protection from abuses by their superiors (since, of course, government efforts of any sort are by their very nature doomed to failure) - do you see a better way to go about it, or do you simply assert that the working class doesn't deserve that sort of "luxury" to begin with?

Please. The government is going to get the same bills insurance companies receive now.

Then how do you explain what I mentioned earlier about how other countries with single-payer plans are able to offer care as good or better than ours at half the cost per capita? They've still got their share of lazy, unhealthy sloths, after all.

[The n00b]

Bullet I notice you didn't address the real damage the teacher's unions are doing. Math and science teachers are getting to be a rare breed. This is mostly because the college graduates that make up those professions can earn far more in industry or even government work than they can teaching.

By raising the salaries of math and science teachers, the states are trying to give those going into industry reason to reconsider a career in teaching. The unions are shooting down this deal in the hopes of hurting the educational system to the point where they have to pay EVERYBODY a higher salary if they want to redress the problem with math and science teachers. Even as someone who's degree enables them to teach high school history I find that disgusting behavior.

I also notice you are not seeing this issue in greys like me and Acid King. Just because they are "the union" does not give them the blind support of the working class. In fact, unions like the UAW and the various teacher's unions deserve to have their power broken when they abuse it. I also deserve to demand that their power be broken when they ask for my tax dollars to save their greedy skins.

[BulletMagnet]

Math and science teachers are getting to be a rare breed. This is mostly because the college graduates that make up those professions can earn far more in industry or even government work than they can teaching.

As I said, raising the salaries of the math and science teachers and ignoring (or more likely cutting) the rest ignores the underlying problem, namely that the entire teaching profession in this country is by and large undervalued and undercompensated compared to other careers, despite the additional skills and time commitments needed to do it effectively (of course I could segue this into how this undercuts all the bluster there is from the upper echelons about "valuing education", but I'll spare you). Singling out whatever field/s the job sector is demanding the most of at the moment is not the way to improve the quality of education in general, or even the quality of the graduates that hirers are supposedly looking for - as many of your mindset like to say, you can't make anyone want to do a particular job. You can only give them enough information to make them a viable candidate for whatever job they might choose to go for, and leave the rest to them. If you crave any sort of long-term solution to education's woes, you've got to dig a lot deeper than, once again, "throwing money at" whatever's getting the most headlines today - the teachers, who are there in the trenches, understand this. "Accountability" advocates, quite simply, do not.

Just because they are "the union" does not give them the blind support of the working class.

As I asked AK above, what would you suggest as a better means to protect workers from abuses, or would you rather just leave them to fend for themselves?

In fact, unions like the UAW and the various teacher's unions deserve to have their power broken when they abuse it.

How many examples of this can you think of that are bad enough to warrant dissolution? I already said that I don't agree with every union push that's ever been on offer, but compared to the repeated crimes and screwups that their bosses have been allowed to get away with, they're peanuts.

I also deserve to demand that their power be broken when they ask for my tax dollars to save their greedy skins.

Sorry to be so blunt, but WTF? The unions aren't the ones asking to be bailed out, it's the management - heck, the bankers and investors aren't unionized, and they got what they wanted (again, a lot more than the automakers are asking) lickety-split, with almost no real concessions. Detroit is exactly the same thing - the guys on the top floor screwed up royally (as I've said before, whatever "excesses" the unions have been getting are nowhere near big enough of a cash drain to be labeled responsible for the companies' woes), and are not only refusing to give up their spots but are demanding that the unions tighten their belts to help them get the bailout money - and what choice do the latter have, since their jobs and everything else are kaput if the bailout doesn't go through? There's no way on earth that you can place the blame on the unions for the way their companies have gone - as I said earlier, their power has lessened, not grown, for a long time now, though apparently their value as a scapegoat for the "deciders" out there has not.

[BryanM]

UAW guys make 1/6 what they're worth.

I had to check since I read a glurge-fantasy $75/hr figure from somewhere..

[BulletMagnet]

I had to check since I read a glurge-fantasy $75/hr figure from somewhere..

The "70+ dollars an hour" figure was arrived at by baldly dishonest calculations, which include pensions being paid to retired workers. More here.

[Michaelm]

As I asked AK above, what would you suggest as a better means to protect workers from abuses, or would you rather just leave them to fend for themselves?

We are entering the golden age of lawfirms
Over here justice insurances are hot. So you can get a lawyer when someone tries to screw you over for an amount above what the contract says. Usually 500 euro or so.
This covers most work related issues too.
The plus is that the lawyer should be going for your sake and not the sake of millions of others that happen to be a member of a union.
The downside is that lawyers are the scum of the earth and it all probably ends up in all of us having far less rights then we have now.

But unions have become scum themselves thinking only about the existence of the union and the causes for their top members.
Over here in the Netherlands you can safely say that the only function of the unions has become an easy entrance in politics.

[The n00b]

UAW guys make 1/6 what they're worth.

I had to check since I read a glurge-fantasy $75/hr figure from somewhere..

Curious that figure was from the UAW site itself. Even they had a hard time playing down the numbers they get though. For instance 26-28 freakin dollars an hour for an auto assembly worker plus benefits? I am floored here. Most times that's not even skilled labor. That's not even counting frakkin overtime! I didn't get near that when I worked in a factory during college. I don't think the toyota workers get near that either. Cut that shit down to 20/hr and the UAW might get my sympathy.

Anyway if the UAW is so competitive with Honda and Toyota shops, why is the UAW president against two of the most reasonable concessions in the gov bailout agreement?

Treasury asked to close down the JOBS bank—an anachronism that keeps UAW workers on the payroll even when they aren't working—and make UAW wages, benefits, and plant floor work rules competitive with those of foreign-owned factories in the U.S. by the end of 2009. (The union agreed to suspend the JOBS bank in early December.) The union also must take company stock instead of cash for half of the money that car companies pledged to finance a health-care trust.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 565622.htm

[neist]

UAW guys make 1/6 what they're worth.

I had to check since I read a glurge-fantasy $75/hr figure from somewhere..

Curious that figure was from the UAW site itself. Even they had a hard time playing down the numbers they get though. For instance 26-28 freakin dollars an hour for an auto assembly worker plus benefits? I am floored here. Most times that's not even skilled labor. That's not even counting frakkin overtime! I didn't get near that when I worked in a factory during college. I don't think the toyota workers get near that either. Cut that shit down to 20/hr and the UAW might get my sympathy.

Anyway if the UAW is so competitive with Honda and Toyota shops, why is the UAW president against two of the most reasonable concessions in the gov bailout agreement?

Treasury asked to close down the JOBS bank—an anachronism that keeps UAW workers on the payroll even when they aren't working—and make UAW wages, benefits, and plant floor work rules competitive with those of foreign-owned factories in the U.S. by the end of 2009. (The union agreed to suspend the JOBS bank in early December.) The union also must take company stock instead of cash for half of the money that car companies pledged to finance a health-care trust.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 565622.htm

I haven't read most of this thread, I'll admit, but a GM plant recently closed where I live, and I know for a fact that they got paid 40-50 an hour.

Crazy stuff... especially since they were on strike half of the time.

[BulletMagnet]

Curious that figure was from the UAW site itself.

In case you didn't notice, the numbers it uses for the "wages vs. worth" statistic are from the Census Bureau's Manufacturer's Survey - they didn't just make their numbers up (which can't be said for a good chunk of Wall Street, who, need I remind you, don't even have to account for what they're doing with the bailout money - yet all of the ire seems to be directed at those union bastards).

I don't think the toyota workers get near that either.

Apparently you missed this link that I posted earlier.

Anyway if the UAW is so competitive with Honda and Toyota shops, why is the UAW president against two of the most reasonable concessions in the gov bailout agreement?

Considering the arguments mentioned in this paragraph -

When asked if his workers should take a pay cut from their wage of $29 an hour to match Toyota's base top wage of $25, Gettelfinger maintains that with bonuses, Toyota pays over $30. As for health-care benefits, Gettelfinger points to the fact that the UAW already has already given up a lot: The union agreed to higher premiums and co-pays in 2005 and last year agreed to set up VEBA, a concession intended to take health-care costs off the auto companies' books.

I'm inclined to agree with him on those points (any flaws you see, by all means point them out). And as the article notes, they've already nixed the JOBS bank and taken cuts elsewhere - what long-term concessions, pray tell, is the management making (and sorry, the "we'll work for a buck" showboating doesn't count)? In my opinion they should be forced to resign for doing such a godawful job, but for some reason even most stalwart free-marketers seem loath to put ANY demands, let alone one of that sort, on their side of the equation.

[Acid King]

I don't agree with every single thing they do, but frankly unions are about the only thing out there that offers working people anything remotely resembling protection from abuses by their superiors (since, of course, government efforts of any sort are by their very nature doomed to failure) - do you see a better way to go about it, or do you simply assert that the working class doesn't deserve that sort of "luxury" to begin with?

Why does it have to be all or nothing? My problem is the way this whole discussion is framed. Personally, I'm not entirely anti-union. Unions can potentially benefit workers. But in some cases unions are corrupt, lazy, slothful, wasteful and present obstacles for otherwise qualified people to gain employment by blocking non union members from work. Criticizing a fucked up union doesn't make me anti working class, nor does it entail me thinking unions are always bad. Suggesting otherwise is Fox News style demagoguery of the first degree and just fucking stupid all around. You may as well be asking me why I love terrorists for suggesting Guantanamo Bay be closed.

Then how do you explain what I mentioned earlier about how other countries with single-payer plans are able to offer care as good or better than ours at half the cost per capita? They've still got their share of lazy, unhealthy sloths, after all.

I don't know, I'm no expert on health care but I will tell you that it's incredibly poor, lazy reasoning to suggest just because countries with nationalized health care have lower health care costs than us, that nationalized health care is why their costs are lower or would lower our costs. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that influence the price of health products and services. There are holes a mile wide with your suggestion.

[BulletMagnet]

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

It doesn't, and I never said it did. In any event, it would appear that you consider the UAW to be a "messed up" union - I've already said that I agree that it could use a few changes (several of which it's already made, I'd assert), but either way, the UAW is not even remotely the cause of the automakers' current woes, and while this doesn't mean they're now beyond criticism, it does mean that our focus should be on the "deciders" who are. Seriously, if anyone has a legitimate complaint about "how the discussion is framed," it's the UAW - they're the least responsible for this mess, and yet somehow they're the ones expected to make all the concessions. Despite the bad things that the union embodies, how is this fair?

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that influence the price of health products and services.

I think it's relatively safe to assume that few of the differences between our health care system and theirs are more substantial than the fact that ours is engineered to make a profit and theirs aren't. Yeah, there are cultural differences and whatnot at work as well, but from here it looks like you really need to strain to suggest that taking the for-profit sensibility out of the system isn't the key difference here - it's the type of "reasoning" which exists solely to slow down the possibility of even investigating the matter further.

[BryanM]

I like those Afghan warlords getting free medical care for their entire families. Good to see someone make good in this time of international instability.

[Sonic R]

After working in automotive injection molding for 24 years, my mother's factory will be shut down permanently on February 20, 2009. This was just announced on the 23 of December…

My mother says she will try to go work at a nail salon with one of her friends, as she has talents in doing nails. After my father passes, she told me she may possibly move back to Vietnam…

But what ever, my mother was a UAW member too. She is overpaid, corrupt, lazy, and a waste of life just like all the rest of the UAW workers.

[The n00b]

After working in automotive injection molding for 24 years, my mother's factory will be shut down permanently on February 20, 2009. This was just announced on the 23 of December…

My mother says she will try to go work at a nail salon with one of her friends, as she has talents in doing nails. After my father passes, she told me she may possibly move back to Vietnam…

But what ever, my mother was a UAW member too. She is overpaid, corrupt, lazy, and a waste of life just like all the rest of the UAW workers.

It's really all or nothing isn't it? Either you play ball with the union or you are part of the problem. Trying to reform the union? Fuck you, get out of here you tool. You probably think we're socialists or you believe everything the media says. ZOMG the company execs paid you off!

Either way, another factory closes down and another worker gets laid off. So the argument goes on.

[BulletMagnet]

It's really all or nothing isn't it? Either you play ball with the union or you are part of the problem.

As was already said above, no one is insisting that the UAW or any other union is perfect and should never be challenged - what IS being said, perfectly accurately, is that the unions are NOT the ones responsible for the mess the auto companies are in, but ARE being treated as such, while the guys on the top floors who ARE the root cause of the trouble are being given all but a free pass. Again, the unions have already agreed to make a pretty significant set of concessions, so I don't know where you're getting this "all or nothing" nonsense from - nobody's saying that the concessions ought to be taken back. The part of the puzzle that's missing is the part about holding the people who actually messed everything up responsible, rather than continuing to allow (as the saying goes) the shit to roll downhill and using the companies' instability as an excuse to further weaken the unions' influence, and self-righteously accuse THEM of being stubborn and refusing to address the problem head-on, while you're at it.

One more time - the unions have more than done their part to try to get their companies back on their feet, and are being laid off and continually criticized as reward for their efforts. Their bosses get to keep control of the companies they all but ruined, and are required to make only the most insignificant of changes (though, once again, the financial "wizards" got off even easier, and they've earned nary a word of criticism from anyone in your camp). Can you begin to consider that the peasants are getting restless for some reason other than "they're being ungrateful?"

[The n00b]

It's really all or nothing isn't it? Either you play ball with the union or you are part of the problem.

One more time - the unions have more than done their part to try to get their companies back on their feet, and are being laid off and continually criticized as reward for their efforts. Their bosses get to keep control of the companies they all but ruined, and are required to make only the most insignificant of changes (though, once again, the financial "wizards" got off even easier, and they've earned nary a word of criticism from anyone in your camp). Can you begin to consider that the peasants are getting restless for some reason other than "they're being ungrateful?"

Can we go for a second time? I don't have a camp and I do not have any "peasants." I guess I could invite a bunch of kids into my house and teach them arts and crafts while charging their parents money but at best I would call that a day care and not a "camp." However, I have no earthly idea how I would go about getting any peasants. So let me break this down for you and Sonic R without the hyperbole.

1. Again, no one in this thread has stated that they are completely against unions. Clear?

2. No one in this thread has stated that they are against the UAW. Being against the abuses of the UAW is not being anti-UAW. This is built up against the media and it comes off the same way as when radical conservatives keep talking about the "liberal media." It serves as one gigantic straw man.

3. Now one of the main sticking points that UAW bigwigs had with the government is that the gov wanted UAW compensation and benefits in line with what Honda and Toyota pay their employees in at least 2 years. How is this a bad thing? You told me that UAW pay and benefits are already roughly equal with other auto factory workers. Who's losing here? Sure the job bank is being eliminated but it was a stupid thing anyway and pretty much had to go away.

4. How are the execs of GM and Ford being compensated compared to the execs of honda, toyota, and BMW. If it's roughly equal, there's nothing you can do here. If it isn't, you might have a case.

[BulletMagnet]

1. Again, no one in this thread has stated that they are completely against unions...2. Being against the abuses of the UAW is not being anti-UAW...3. You told me that UAW pay and benefits are already roughly equal with other auto factory workers. Who's losing here?

I've already addressed all of these things in previous posts, and am on the same wavelength as you on all three. That said, where do you get off spouting the "all or nothing" garbage? The union itself, via its concessions, has apparently agreed that it needs to be more competitive with the foreign carmakers, and I've agreed with you on that point as well - so who's demanding "all or nothing?" Even in his post, Sonic didn't say a word about any of this - what he DID say was, after the union has done a good deal to try to do what people like yourself say they should do, they're still being 1) derided as greedy and recalcitrant, and b) having workers laid off while the shamelessly irresponsible executives get to keep their seats. That apparently bothers him, and frankly it bothers me too - I haven't heard a word from you on it, though, save for the following -

4. How are the execs of GM and Ford being compensated compared to the execs of honda, toyota, and BMW. If it's roughly equal, there's nothing you can do here.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but the amount of compensation isn't even the issue here - the fact that they're getting ANY compensation at all is in itself ridiculous, considering what a godawful job they've done running their companies. What makes it even more ludicrous is that these guys have been at the forefront of those arguing in favor of "self-regulation" (i.e. "we'll adjust our practices once the market demands it, the good will be kept and the bad will be thrown out, nobody has to worry about a thing") - if "self-regulation" worked like they insisted it did when they fought off efforts to increase fuel economy and other improvements, every last one of their asses would have hit the pavement hard, ages ago, and they would have gotten exactly squat in "severance" packages. They sure as hell wouldn't be demanding taxpayer money as a reward for their incompetence.

I really don't care all that much what Honda/Toyota/etc.'s execs are making at the moment - their companies are still in business, without government aid (and whatever losses they've taken recently, they're not blaming it on their workers). The "big three" don't even meet that lowly minimum standard - so pardon me if, when they insist on firing workers "for cost reasons" while refusing to give up their own posh positions, I'm not particularly sympathetic to them, or anyone who makes apologies for them.

[Elixir]

I just realized I bought Ketsui during the recession.

That probably wasn't a good idea.

[BryanM]

The lead guy at Toyota was paid $1 million last year.