Dow drops 416 on global market plunge

NEW YORK - Stocks had their worst day since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Tuesday, briefly hurtling the Dow Jones industrials down more than 500 points on a worldwide tide of concern that the U.S. and Chinese economies are stumbling and that share prices have become overinflated.

The steepness of the market's drop, as well as its global breadth, signaled a possible correction after a long period of stable and steadily rising stock markets that had not been shaken by such a volatile day of trading in several years.

A 9 percent slide in Chinese stocks, which came a day after investors sent Shanghai's benchmark index to a record high close, set the tone for U.S. trading. The Dow began the day falling sharply, and the decline accelerated throughout the course of the session before stocks took a huge plunge in late afternoon as computer-driven sell programs kicked in, and also as a computer glitch caused a delay in the recording of a large number of trades.

The Dow fell 546.02, or 4.3 percent, to 12,086.06 before recovering some ground in the last hour of trading to close down 416.02, or 3.29 percent, at 12,216.24, leaving it in negative territory for the year. Because the worst of the plunge took place after 2:30 p.m., the New York Stock Exchange's trading limits, designed to halt such precipitous moves, were not activated.

The decline was the Dow's worst since Sept. 17, 2001, the first trading day after the terror attacks, when the blue chips closed down 684.81, or 7.13 percent.

The drop hit every sector across the market. Riskier issues such as small-cap and technology stocks suffered some of the biggest declines, but big industrial companies, those that are often hurt the most in an economic downturn, also were pummeled, with raw materials producers among the hardest hit.

Now; prepare yourself for the deluge of --"Aw, you're just spreading this cumm-ya-nist propaganda because you hate this godly nation of Amurica, you pinko faggot!!"-- recriminations.

dharma,

You're spreading communist propaganda because you hate this godly nation of America, you pinko faggot.

FT,

You just said "cumm" and "faggot" in the same sentence. Stop making me hot.
:eek:

Actually.. i doubt anyone would have said anything of the kind FT..

actually.. YOU said it...

Bad day for the Dow... i'm guessing lefties think it's bush's fault LOL

holy crap, I have heard so little about the economy I almost forgot there was one. thanks for the update.

3.29 percent
ahhhh...bummer, duuuude.

if it's not recovered by next Monday, i'm changing my avatar for one week, and FT gets to pick the substitution.:matrix:

I really dont think its all that big a deal. i mean i agree with mike, if it isnt recovered in like a week, id be surprised. I dont really think people will be jumping out of buildings over this one.

LOL Trav.. you knew a drop would be front page news while a republican was in office. Likewise, i didn't hear crap about the economy for a LONG time.. i guess it was doing pretty well.. go figure.

Likewise, i didn't hear crap about the economy for a LONG time.. i guess it was doing pretty well.. go figure.

The economy is always there, if you don't pay attention that is your perogative. You have missed out on all sorts of intersting economic tidbis. Like the fact that home forclosures are up almost 200% from 2005.

As for today, if you didn't lose anything then don't worry about it. I literally lost thousands in my portfolio today. I guess you can't be too fussed when you don't have anything to lose though. No reason to pay attention when you have no skin in the game, I suppose.

As for today, if you didn't lose anything then don't worry about it. I literally lost thousands in my portfolio today. I guess you can't be too fussed when you don't have anything to lose though. No reason to pay attention when you have no skin in the game, I suppose.

To a certain degree.. that is entirely true...

one thing that irks me so much about today is the abundance of people being offended for other people....

I didn't lose anything yesterday, so you are right, no skin off my back. The question is.. why did the drop happen? Doesn't someone HAVE to be held accountable in today's society?

You have missed out on all sorts of intersting economic tidbis. Like the fact that home forclosures are up almost 200% from 2005.

Yeah, because people bought homes they couldn't afford with the assistance of adjustable rate mortgages and were surprised for some reason when the rates increased from what were historical lows. I suppose it's the government's fault that people are stupid.

""I have heard so little about the economy I almost forgot there was one.""

Don't feel bad.

It seems that the Smirking Imbecile from Crawford has for 7 years had much the same problem.

Or the quick-to-label clueless imbecile who tries to label himself as a "thinker" fails to see the difference in the optimism and pessimism of our economy based on who is in office.

Not so much "optimism" as blind partisan spin and denial of the obvious.

Yeah, because people bought homes they couldn't afford with the assistance of adjustable rate mortgages and were surprised for some reason when the rates increased from what were historical lows. I suppose it's the government's fault that people are stupid.

And because of massive layoffs from outsourcing and downsizing due to the destruction of the American manufacturing base.

And because of natural disasters like Katrina.

Sorry, I am not into blaming the victim.

And because of massive layoffs from outsourcing and downsizing due to the destruction of the American manufacturing base.

But unemployment is down since 2005. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

But unemployment is down since 2005. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

SHHHH Lionel.. the media might hear you!

Just cause the unemployment rate is down doesnt mean the high paying jobs sent overseas havnt been replaced with low paying "service" jobs.

But we hear so much about the unemployment rate when its up.. you would think the media would "call it both ways"... guess not.

Just cause the unemployment rate is down.......

In reality, the unemployment number is not really "down".

They have changed the way the stats are compiled. IOW, the thoroughly dishonest bastards in Washington are cooking the books.

The true rate is probably double or triple what they're telling people.

There was also a study done by Queens College on actual unemployment in West Virginia a few months ago. It found that, even though West Virginia's so-called "official" unemployment rate was close to the national average (around 4.5 - 5%), the ACTUAL unemployment rate was more than 20%.

As is the case on a national level, it was found that many of the people who WERE unemployed were not COUNTED as being unemployed because they either have been unemployed too long to be counted, or have used up their benefits, or due to their being considered for various reasons *no longer actively seeking employment*.

I literally lost thousands in my portfolio today. I guess you can't be too fussed when you don't have anything to lose though. If you're sophisticated enough to use the word "portfolio" you should be able to understand that this will not hurt you in the long run.

Or are you just being dramatic?

Or are you just being dramatic?
He's gone to Stanford so knows more than a lawyer. He was recently visiting China and therefore knows everything about it. He knows about the state of the military because he has some friends in the Army. He lost thousands in his portfolio due to the stock market doing poorly.

Within one paragraph he could tie all of those to President Bush, so it is safe to say he is being dramatic.

In reality, the unemployment number is not really "down".

They have changed the way the stats are compiled. IOW, the thoroughly dishonest bastards in Washington are cooking the books.
Point out what they changed then maybe I'll believe you.

With documentation of the following: "As is the case on a national level, it was found that many of the people who WERE unemployed were not COUNTED as being unemployed because they either have been unemployed too long to be counted, or have used up their benefits, or due to their being considered for various reasons *no longer actively seeking employment*."
The true rate is probably double or triple what they're telling people.

There was also a study done by Queens College on actual unemployment in West Virginia a few months ago. It found that, even though West Virginia's so-called "official" unemployment rate was close to the national average (around 4.5 - 5%), the ACTUAL unemployment rate was more than 20%.
"Double or triple" eh? Then you present a college study of West Virginia that shows more than quadruple.

Let's say 20% of the population was unemployed. Do you think that this study shows weight with the whole country? That would mean 60 million people are out of work, which is roughly the population of the UK. Even with the population of West Virginia that means over 361 thousand people are without work in a state with 1.8 million.

I'm tempted to use their model and travel around my home state to document the unemployment of Texas. You can join me, because one out of every five people won't be hard to find with 20 million folks ambling around this region.

:rolleyes:

If you're sophisticated enough to use the word "portfolio" you should be able to understand that this will not hurt you in the long run.

Or are you just being dramatic?
Not everyone with a portfolio is sophisticated, in fact, most of them are not, that's what they pay their brokers for.

If you're sophisticated enough to use the word "portfolio" you should be able to understand that this will not hurt you in the long run.

Or are you just being dramatic?


"Portfolio" was the word of the day recently in his school. He and the other students had to learn to spell it properly and use it in a sentence.

Dramatic? Does one actually believe that the clone of overdose can demonstrate that behavior as well as the original?

In reality, the unemployment number is not really "down".

They have changed the way the stats are compiled. IOW, the thoroughly dishonest bastards in Washington are cooking the books.

The true rate is probably double or triple what they're telling people.

There was also a study done by Queens College on actual unemployment in West Virginia a few months ago. It found that, even though West Virginia's so-called "official" unemployment rate was close to the national average (around 4.5 - 5%), the ACTUAL unemployment rate was more than 20%.

As is the case on a national level, it was found that many of the people who WERE unemployed were not COUNTED as being unemployed because they either have been unemployed too long to be counted, or have used up their benefits, or due to their being considered for various reasons *no longer actively seeking employment*.

It'd be nice if you could prove it..

and it'd be nice if you could prove that these surveys done during the Bush administration are the first ones to "cook the books", IF they did that. Can you prove Clinton's unemployment numbers were legit?

blah, blah, blah... you should be able to understand that this will not hurt you in the long run.


You have that backwards. I know that it won't severely hurt me in the short run, but the long run is precisely what I am worried about. If you have any idea what happened the other day and know anything about China's role in it, then you might have some hope of understanding.

The American economy is not well. We no longer make anything to export and we are borrowing more money than ever just to continue functioning. This is not a good situation.

Mark my words, this situation will come to a head. China is going to decide to slow down or stop it's lending to us sooner or later.

Alan Greenspan has expressed concern over our debt to China and the vulnerability it creates in our economy.
Warren Buffet recognized it and that is why he moved the bulk of his wealth into foreign holdings last year.

If you really think that there is nothing to worry about then by all means, forget I said anything, forget anything happened and continue about your life as usual.

"Portfolio" was the word of the day recently in his school. He and the other students had to learn to spell it properly and use it in a sentence.

Dramatic? Does one actually believe that the clone of overdose can demonstrate that behavior as well as the original?

You are as funny as a heart attack.

But unemployment is down since 2005. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

Sure, because they count all those Mc"Manufacturing" Mcjobs that I have been repeatedly told are only for teenagers so they can afford gas money and movies.

Lionel, are you telling me you don't believe our manufacturing base has disappeared?

Can you prove Clinton's unemployment numbers were legit?

No.

I do not think that they were legit. They've been lying about the true unemployment numbers for a long time.

You really need to get over this childish --"Waaaah!, if anyone criticizes Bush it means they think everyone else was better than him!-- notion that you have.

Lionel, are you telling me you don't believe our manufacturing base has disappeared?

To some extent, yes. We've been changing over to a service economy (defined as "not manufacturing," rather than "fast food") for years now. Having said that, the Asian car companies are building plants all over the place lately.

To some extent, yes. We've been changing over to a service economy (defined as "not manufacturing," rather than "fast food") for years now.

Correct. Our manufacturing base has gone away to be replaced with "Service" jobs which have been the targets of outsourcing.

Having said that, the Asian car companies are building plants all over the place lately.

Yes, assembly plants. There is a difference between maufacturing plants where they make things and assembly plants where they put those pre-made parts together.

Just cause the unemployment rate is down doesnt mean the high paying jobs sent overseas havnt been replaced with low paying "service" jobs.

Bingo! The idea is that we are supposed to be so grateful just to have a job that we overlook the fact that all our good paying jobs are going away.

.... then by all means, forget I said anything, That generally happens anyway.

That generally happens anyway.

Ignorance is bliss.

And you seem quite blissful.

Almost oxycontin blissful.

No.

I do not think that they were legit. They've been lying about the true unemployment numbers for a long time.

You really need to get over this childish --"Waaaah!, if anyone criticizes Bush it means they think everyone else was better than him!-- notion that you have.

i never said "waaaah"... you did.

And hey, considering your negative bias towards Bush, i HAVE to assume that under any other president things would be better in your skewed estimation, reguardless of the topic.

I'll never forget when you said something to the tune of:

"Charles Manson would be a better president than George Bush"

Still stand by those words?

It is reasonable to assume that things would be better under any other President based upon this one's record.

Yes, assembly plants. There is a difference between maufacturing plants where they make things and assembly plants where they put those pre-made parts together.

The jobs pay the same. Besides, the idea of making an entire finished product from raw materials to completed product all in the same plant pretty much went by the wayside 50 years ago. Oh, and Toyota has an engine plant in West Virginia, so it's not like all of the parts come from China and a tiny crew of workers screw them all together.

For their part, the voters have long ago moved past last year's Dubai Ports fiasco, with polls showing that most Americans understand the benefits of foreign investment. They can see it every day. Only this week, Toyota announced its latest plans to make cars in the U.S., creating some 2,000 jobs in Mississippi. Hyundai is locating an R&D headquarters in Michigan. And Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, recently boasted that Pennsylvania "has almost 400,000 people employed by foreign owned companies."

In 2005 alone, foreigners increased their investment in the U.S. by $1.4 trillion, an amount larger than the entire GDP of all but seven nations. Foreigners like our giant market, its rapid growth and, especially since the 2003 tax cuts, our higher returns on capital investment. According to Commerce Department data, last year foreigners invested roughly $500 billion more in the U.S. than Americans invested abroad.

"The United States derives substantial benefits from open trade and investment flows," concludes the latest Economic Report of the President. Net foreign direct investment "accounts for a disproportionately high share of U.S. exports" (19%), physical capital expenditures (10%), and R&D spending (13%). This investment also accounts for five million American jobs paying well above the national average.

Wall Street Journal - subcription required (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117263423664221678.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

The jobs pay the same.

Actually they do not. More and more of those jobs are non-union and non-union workers make an average o 30% less than union workers.
The idea that you shouldn't care as long as you are getting a paycheck is just an excuse for lazyness and complacency, IMO.

the idea of making an entire finished product from raw materials to completed product all in the same plant pretty much went by the wayside 50 years ago.

Actually it was only about 25 years ago and only in America.


Oh, and Toyota has an engine plant in West Virginia, so it's not like all of the parts come from China and a tiny crew of workers screw them all together.

Not necessarily China, but that is pretty much exactly how it works. Parts come from elsewhere where a comparitively small number of employees assemble them.

According to Commerce Department data, last year foreigners invested roughly $500 billion more in the U.S. than Americans invested abroad.

Hense the trade deficit. Not a good thing. Except in opinion pieces in the WSJ.

They took their jab at Lou Dobbs in the first paragraph, but I think Lou Dobbs is absolutely correct.

More and more of those jobs are non-union and non-union workers make an average o 30% less than union workers.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Contracts insisted upon by the UAW have priced new automobiles beyond the reach of a great many. Long gone are the days when a pretty good vehicle could be had for less than the annual salary of the normal worker. Unions had their time and use in history, no doubt. That time has come and gone for a great many of those unions.

Contracts insisted upon by the UAW have priced new automobiles beyond the reach of a great many.

Nonsense. It is the employer based health care system we have that has added those costs to our automobiles. There is more healthcare cost in a car made in America than there is cost of steel.


Long gone are the days when a pretty good vehicle could be had for less than the annual salary of the normal worker.

Not so, all of the big three have models available starting under 20k.


Unions had their time and use in history, no doubt. That time has come and gone for a great many of those unions.

More Nonsense. Unions are just as needed today as ever. The playing field is still nowhere near level.

Correct. Our manufacturing base has gone away to be replaced with "Service" jobs which have been the targets of outsourcing.



Yes, assembly plants. There is a difference between maufacturing plants where they make things and assembly plants where they put those pre-made parts together.


The US has been a predominantly service economy since '86! It hasn't effected the economy one iota. In fact the economy and GDP have continued to grow and has more than tripled in that time frame. In a global economy jobs will be outsourced where they can be done for the greatest amount of value added.
Good paying jobs are going to where they can be done for a tenth of what they formally were. Thosed places produce goods significantly cheaper than they were. Those jobs have been replaced by other jobs that pay just as well or more.
So manufacturing jobs being outsourced is significant of what exactly? It hasn't hurt the economy one iota and it's helped lift many other nations. This is all good, no.

Who said it was just manufacturing jobs being outsourced?

You say that like it's a bad thing. Contracts insisted upon by the UAW have priced new automobiles beyond the reach of a great many. Long gone are the days when a pretty good vehicle could be had for less than the annual salary of the normal worker. Unions had their time and use in history, no doubt. That time has come and gone for a great many of those unions.
you can still get a lot of car for $25k.

Actually they do not. More and more of those jobs are non-union and non-union workers make an average o 30% less than union workers.
The idea that you shouldn't care as long as you are getting a paycheck is just an excuse for lazyness and complacency, IMO.

Joining a union is an excuse for lazyness and complacency, IMHO. If you're going to be treated the same as the laziest person you work with, where's the motivation to try?

Actually it was only about 25 years ago and only in America.

I don't know where you get that at all. At this point in time it's pretty much only the emerging economies that are still using the end to end production method.

Not necessarily China, but that is pretty much exactly how it works. Parts come from elsewhere where a comparitively small number of employees assemble them.

Right, but that doesn't mean it was outsourced. The transmissions Ford puts in its trucks are built in Cincinnati and shipped to wherever they put the trucks together. The engines for Toyotas assembled in Kentucky are built in West Virginia. I don't understand why it matters that they're not all done in one place.

Hense the trade deficit. Not a good thing. Except in opinion pieces in the WSJ.

$500 million more coming into the country than going out is counteracting the trade deficit.

We're slowly drifting off point here. The point is that it's usually assumed, but never proven, that all of our jobs are going overseas and things are going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile, unemployment levels continue to drift up and down within their usual parameters and companies, foreign and domestic, continue to invest in this country. Frankly, it seems to me that the bigger problem is not that the jobs are all going overseas but rather that they're all moving from the North to the South.

Joining a union is an excuse for lazyness and complacency, IMHO. If you're going to be treated the same as the laziest person you work with, where's the motivation to try?



I don't know where you get that at all. At this point in time it's pretty much only the emerging economies that are still using the end to end production method.



Right, but that doesn't mean it was outsourced. The transmissions Ford puts in its trucks are built in Cincinnati and shipped to wherever they put the trucks together. The engines for Toyotas assembled in Kentucky are built in West Virginia. I don't understand why it matters that they're not all done in one place.



$500 million more coming into the country than going out is counteracting the trade deficit.

We're slowly drifting off point here. The point is that it's usually assumed, but never proven, that all of our jobs are going overseas and things are going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile, unemployment levels continue to drift up and down within their usual parameters and companies, foreign and domestic, continue to invest in this country. Frankly, it seems to me that the bigger problem is not that the jobs are all going overseas but rather that they're all moving from the North to the South.
A union is an upfront effort to monopolize the supply of labor to a given employer. Since that will put the employer at a disadvantage, unions naturally try to monopolize the supply of labor over an entire industry. Since that will put the industry at a disadvantage compared with foreign competitors, unions next naturally try to restrict imports.

If they succeed in all three of these, you end up with a situation where the unionized workers can demand almost anything, and, do (human nature is involved here) generally become greedy and lazy. Sooner or later the industry involved is destroyed (people either find substitute industries or more and more are forced to do without).

It also has two other effects. The nation where this happens has an overall lower standard of living than it would otherwise (since those lucky to be in unions live off those who are not--an inefficient allocation of consumption, leading to misallocations of capital), and the country as a whole declines.

The impulse to organization when workers are exploited is a strong one, and idealistic people readily see the short-term benefit. The "laws" of economics, however, are not much different from the "laws" of physics. Just as there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, you cannot have a free lunch.

The market does not exist in a bubble. From what I've been able to gather, the fall is due to a combination of the following: The falling of the hyper-inflated Chinese stock market, the decreased value of the Yen, and a reaction against the near vertical climb in the stock market which has been occurring for quite some time now.

The US market is becomming more intertwined with the Chinese market. While I see no clear connection between the two, I suspect some sort of "chaos theory" correlation. With the Yen hitting new lows, people are moving out of the American stock market and moving to the Nikkei. Finally, people are starting to get antsy, and you know the old addage, "Buy low, sell high". Well, now it's high. Investments are moving from the more volitile electronics, services, and industries into low-growth but very stable sectors of the market.

Just my 3 cents.

Joining a union is an excuse for lazyness and complacency, IMHO. If you're going to be treated the same as the laziest person you work with, where's the motivation to try?
the only reason for a union is still bad management, and there's still plenty of that out there, either abusive or just plain incompetent.


I don't know where you get that at all. At this point in time it's pretty much only the emerging economies that are still using the end to end production method.



Right, but that doesn't mean it was outsourced. The transmissions Ford puts in its trucks are built in Cincinnati and shipped to wherever they put the trucks together. The engines for Toyotas assembled in Kentucky are built in West Virginia. I don't understand why it matters that they're not all done in one place.

the Rouge Plant and Buick City come to mind-if you have the amount of production that those plants had, it made sense. rail cars of raw materials went in, and the only thing that left on a truck was the finished car (ideally). as shipping by truck became cheaper and more reliable, it made more sense to build common parts for multiple models (engines & transmissions) at their own plant and ship out the finished product. same concept, different scale.



$500 million more coming into the country than going out is counteracting the trade deficit.

every lil' bit helps, eh?

We're slowly drifting off point here. The point is that it's usually assumed, but never proven, that all of our jobs are going overseas and things are going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile, unemployment levels continue to drift up and down within their usual parameters and companies, foreign and domestic, continue to invest in this country. Frankly, it seems to me that the bigger problem is not that the jobs are all going overseas but rather that they're all moving from the North to the South.

us drift? you gotta be shitting me!

it not north to south or here to there that it labor is drifting, it's from in house labor to low bidder that scares me. besides wages and benefits that get cut to get that low bid, quality control seems to be getting cut too. it's not that dangerous if an interior trim piece fails, but with whole brake systems being outsourced, i worry.

A union is an upfront effort to monopolize the supply of labor to a given employer. Since that will put the employer at a disadvantage, unions naturally try to monopolize the supply of labor over an entire industry. Since that will put the industry at a disadvantage compared with foreign competitors, unions next naturally try to restrict imports.

If they succeed in all three of these, you end up with a situation where the unionized workers can demand almost anything, and, do (human nature is involved here) generally become greedy and lazy. Sooner or later the industry involved is destroyed (people either find substitute industries or more and more are forced to do without).

It also has two other effects. The nation where this happens has an overall lower standard of living than it would otherwise (since those lucky to be in unions live off those who are not--an inefficient allocation of consumption, leading to misallocations of capital), and the country as a whole declines.

The impulse to organization when workers are exploited is a strong one, and idealistic people readily see the short-term benefit. The "laws" of economics, however, are not much different from the "laws" of physics. Just as there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, you cannot have a free lunch.
a fair wage is a far cry from a free lunch.

Down markets don't come back. Once the money (profits) are taken out, that's it -- it's funds lost.

It's really simple how it works ...

Your employer's fund manager takes deductions from your pay check and puts them in your retirement fund ... the big boys let the pot build then through some clever and strategically planned maneuvers (puts, call, long, shorts, whatever) they reap the rewards and the funds end up in their wallets. Then it starts all over again ... the employees donate, the big boys wait like sharks ... ROTF.

Any funds that then come into the markets that make the markets look like they are recovering is new funds ... more of your retirement.

Market players = SUCKAS.

They're gonna go down to that beach and take you away someday my friend.

The US has been a predominantly service economy since '86!

Not true! We still had plenty of manufacturing jobs then. We didn't really start to hear the "sucking sound" until the 90s, after NAFTA. Chrysler didn't get rid of most of it's manufacturing plants until starting in 1999. I should know, I work there.



It hasn't effected the economy one iota.

Then you simply do not understand the economy.


In a global economy jobs will be outsourced where they can be done for the greatest amount of value added.

It is only called a "global economy" in America. Everyone else has protections for their economies. We are the only ones leaving ourselves wide open to be taken advantage of.


Good paying jobs are going to where they can be done for a tenth of what they formally were.

Yes, and that is BAD! It does NOT benefit America one iota!
The businesses who benefit are multinational, not American. They do not pass ANY savings onto the consumers.
When Nike moved its manufacturing out of America, the prices of their shoes did not go down one penny.


Those jobs have been replaced by other jobs that pay just as well or more.

That is so ridiculous it is laughable.

Joining a union is an excuse for lazyness and complacency, IMHO.

Your opinion reveals a basic ignorance about the balance of power in labor wage negotiations and the history of labor unions. Without unions, businesses have a monopoly on wages and working conditions. Before Labor unions, 80 hour work weeks, unsafe working conditions and substistance wages were the norm. It is only because of labor unions that we enjoy a 40 hour work week, the concept of overtime, benefits, health insurance, sick days, vacations or retirement. If you think those things are all lazy and complacent then I have to ask... do you take vacation days? Sick days? Do you get overtime? Do you refuse all of those things because you think they are "lazy and complacent"?


If you're going to be treated the same as the laziest person you work with, where's the motivation to try?

This also reveals a basic misunderstanding on your part about what labor unions actually do.

Everyone in the workplace has some minimum level of basic standards by which they should be treated, from the laziest person to the most productive, NOBODY should be discriminated against, abused, cheated, lied to or endangered by their Employer. Yes, in that sense, everyone should be "treated the same".

Labor unions do not prohibit merit based rasies or bonuses. It does not prohibit promotions based on performance. In that way the laziest person is definately NOT "treated the same" as everyone else.

Real wages fall as attack on US workers intensifies

16 May 2005

In a stark indication of the mounting attack on the social conditions of American workers, the average real wage in the US has begun to decline steeply for the first time in over a decade. The decline in wages is a product of increased inflation in recent months, combined with a persistently poor job market, even in the midst of a supposed economic recovery.

The wage figures have come out amidst a multi-front assault on the social position of the working class in the US. The government and American business are carrying out a wholesale attack on benefits and working conditions, an attack that is having devastating consequences.

The Financial Times reported on May 10 that real wages declined in both the first quarter of 2005 and the last quarter of 2004. Inflation through March 2005 was 3.1 percent, while wages increased by only 2.4 percent. The result is an overall decline in the spending power of workers. In October-December 2004, real wages declined by nearly 1 percent, the steepest fall since the beginning of 1991.

The Times commented, “Many economists believe that in spite of the unexpectedly large job creation of 274,000 in April, the uneven revival of the labor market since the 2001 recession has made it hard for workers to negotiate real improvements in living standards. Even after last month’s bumper gain in employment, there are 22,000 fewer private sector jobs than when the recession began in March 2001, a 0.02 percent fall. At the same point in the recovery from the recession of the early 1990s, private sector employment was up 4.7 percent.”

A February 2005 study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the real wages for most American workers fell or remained flat for all of 2004, with only the top 5 percent of wage-earners seeing their incomes rise. Even though jobs were added throughout 2004, the number of additional jobs was substantially less than is normal during a period of economy recovery.

The EPI noted, “Due to the relatively modest amount of job creation, long-term unemployment levels remained exceptionally high, with the number of unemployed individuals exhausting their regular state unemployment benefits and not receiving additional aid hitting a record level of 3.5 million.”

Indeed, the unemployment rate in the US still stands at a relatively high 5.2 percent, in spite of last month’s job figures. Moreover, the percentage of the working age population that is not considered part of the workforce—including people who have given up hope and have stopped searching for a job—is still at 34 percent, well above where it stood before the recession began in 2001.

There is little evidence that the situation is likely to improve for US workers. Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley noted in a comment to the New York Times on April 12, “We’re in for a long period when inflation-adjusted wages will be under acute pressure. That’s a most unusual development in a period of high productivity growth.”

The high productivity growth during the same period has meant that American corporations, on average, have been getting more out of their workers for less, and this, combined with corporate tax cuts, has translated into an increase in corporate profits. In its February 10 issue, the business magazine Economist noted that in 2004 “America’s after-tax profits rose to their highest as a proportion of GDP for 75 years.... The flip side is that labor’s share of the cake has never been lower.... Over the past three years American corporate profits have risen by 60 percent, wage income by only 10 percent.”

Capitalism always moves in cycles, with periods of relative growth followed by periods of relative decline. One of the main characteristics of a time of general economic downturn is that the periods of relative economic growth are shorter and shallower than the periods of slump. The periods of growth do not translate into real gains for broad sections of the population. Even though economists declared an end to the recession three years ago, conditions faced by the majority of workers continue to stagnate or decline.

There is much talk in economic circles of a new “soft patch” in the economy, in spite of the April job figures. March saw a very small growth of jobs, a deceleration of consumer spending and a sharp fall in capital goods orders. There is concern that the decline in real wages, while helping to boost profits, may contribute to a drop in consumer spending, the main vehicle of economic growth in the US. The US consumer is already burdened by enormous levels of debt and confronts rising prices for oil and basic necessities. A fall in wages could tip the scales.

The rise in corporate profits, and the corresponding enrichment of a small percentage of the population, is not a sign of strength in the American economy. Rather, it is a product of a quite deliberate attempt to shift wealth in the US up the economic ladder—a transfer from the poor to the rich. The response of the American ruling elite to a decline in its economic hegemony—a decline that was most recently demonstrated in fall of General Motors and Ford bonds to junk status—has been to wage an increasingly ferocious attack on American workers.

There are many aspects of this attack in addition to wage reductions. At many of the major corporations, and in particular the airline and auto giants, a campaign is under way to eliminate so-called “legacy costs.” These legacy costs include health care and secure pensions, as well as a tradition of job security for workers at these companies.

The decision of a bankruptcy court earlier this week to give United Airlines the go-ahead to dump its pension program of 122,000 of its workers on the federal government is the latest, but by no means last, round in the assault on pensions. The other major airlines will be forced to follow suit, transforming themselves into the mirror image of the low-cost airlines with which they are competing, where low-wage, no-benefit labor is the norm. (See “Court approves termination of United Airlines pension plans”)

The next industry where legacy costs will be eliminated is the auto industry. As the bond status of GM and Ford was reduced, Wall Street made it clear that it expected the auto giants to find some way to dump their high health care and pension costs. The magazine BusinessWeek was quite explicit in its prognosis. In an article in its May 9 issue, the magazine declared:

“BusinessWeek’s analysis is that within five years GM must become a much smaller company, with fewer brands, fewer models, and reduced legacy costs.... [CEO Rick Wagoner] is going to have to force a radical restructuring of his workers and the rest of the entrenched GM system, or have it forced on him by outsiders or a bankruptcy court.... At some point the laws of physics take over and, like steelmakers and airlines, GM is at the mercy of global forces. It simply cannot compete in a global economy with the enormous burden it now carries in legacy costs. It certainly cannot meet those costs for long off a shrinking sales base and negative cash flow. And distracted by those woes, it can’t begin to make the investments necessary to match the Koreans on price, the Japanese on quality, and the Europeans on performance.” What is the “legacy” that must be eliminated? It is the legacy of a period in which a section of American workers was able to secure certain rights and social benefits: relatively secure jobs, a guaranteed pension, some assurance that if one got sick it would not result in personal bankruptcy. As far as the American ruling elite is concerned, all of this legacy, or whatever remains of it, must go. This includes not only pensions and health care paid by corporations, but also pensions and health care paid by the government—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. These programs all represent a drain on surplus in one form or another. As tax cuts are implemented to funnel money back to the ruling elite, the programs that these taxes helped pay for must be scrapped. From the standpoint of US government policy, programs that provide health and retirement benefits to the American worker are unacceptable diversions from other spending priorities—above all the financing of military adventures to secure cheap raw materials and markets.

The drive by the Bush administration to “reform” the giant entitlement programs is rooted in the determination to scale back benefits won by American workers. Bush’s latest proposal to modify Social Security is to scale back benefits for “better off workers,” defined as those making over $20,000 a year. Paul Krugman noted in his May 9 column that the plan involves a blatant contradiction: “To avert the danger of future cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush wants us to commit now to, um, future cuts in benefits.”

Krugman also noted the differential between relative benefits between rich and poor people as a result of the combined tax cuts and proposed Social Security reform. “Suppose you’re earning $60,000 a year,” he wrote. “On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year.” However, for someone making $1 million a year, “You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by $9,400 per year.”

Thus the combination of tax cuts and Social Security reform involves a huge transfer of wealth from poorer Americans to the very wealthy. Of course, the main aim of the Bush administration is not to reform Social Security, but ultimately to eliminate it.

With Medicaid, the state and federal governments—with the participation of both the Democratic and Republican Parties—are carrying out massive cuts in a program that benefits the most vulnerable sections of the population: the very poor, the elderly, the disabled and children. Public spending on housing is set to be slashed by half a billion dollars, which will have an immediate impact on the 2 million low-income families who rely on the government to help provide shelter.

The Medicare reform bill, scheduled to go into effect in 2006, is the first step in the privatization and dismantling of the Medicare program. In a particularly vindictive move, the government announced last week that poor people on food stamps who qualify for additional aid through the Medicare prescription drug benefit may see their food stamps decline—just in case anyone thought that the poor might get at least something out of the deal.

As wages decline, jobs become more insecure and the social safety net is dismantled, millions of working people in the United States are confronted on a day-to-day basis with imminent catastrophe. If anything goes wrong—a layoff, a sudden and unexpected medical cost, a death in the family, a sudden drop in housing values—financial crisis looms. As if in anticipation of this growing crisis confronting American workers, the government recently passed bankruptcy legislation, with significant bipartisan support, that will undermine the ability of individuals to escape the burden of their creditors.

After decades of betrayals on the part of the trade union bureaucracy, there exists no organizational opposition to the assault by the American ruling elite. The Democratic Party has abandoned any real commitment to social reform and has joined hands with the Republican Party in attacking social programs. All of this is creating conditions for a social explosion that must inevitably develop outside of, and in opposition to, the existing political structure.

See Also:
US: states, federal government prepare massive Medicaid cuts
[11 May 2005]
Ford and GM debt reduced to junk bond status
[9 May 2005]
Bush demands deep cuts in Social Security benefits
[30 April 2005]

Your opinion reveals a basic ignorance about the balance of power in labor wage negotiations and the history of labor unions. Without unions, businesses have a monopoly on wages and working conditions.

I'm well aware of the history of unions. As far as a monopoly on wages - the rest of us seem to get by just fine. Businesses compete with each other for workers. If you're competent and have skills, you stand to do very well. If not, well, perhaps you'd better improve yourself.

Before Labor unions, 80 hour work weeks, unsafe working conditions and substistance wages were the norm. It is only because of labor unions that we enjoy a 40 hour work week, the concept of overtime, benefits, health insurance, sick days, vacations or retirement. If you think those things are all lazy and complacent then I have to ask..

Labor unions have done tremendous things for all workers in this country. I'm in absolute agreement. But this isn't 1927 anymore and I'm not going to join a union for nostalgia.

do you take vacation days? Sick days? Do you get overtime? Do you refuse all of those things because you think they are "lazy and complacent"?

Yes, almost never, no, and that's not what I was talking about.

This also reveals a basic misunderstanding on your part about what labor unions actually do.

Everyone in the workplace has some minimum level of basic standards by which they should be treated, from the laziest person to the most productive, NOBODY should be discriminated against, abused, cheated, lied to or endangered by their Employer. Yes, in that sense, everyone should be "treated the same".

Labor unions do not prohibit merit based rasies or bonuses. It does not prohibit promotions based on performance. In that way the laziest person is definately NOT "treated the same" as everyone else.

Well, then it sounds like being in a union is just the same as not being in a union, except for the dues.

Well, then it sounds like being in a union is just the same as not being in a union, except for the dues.

I have to agree. I've had to join unions twice, as a requirement for employment. First time, I was a bagger at a major-chain grocery store; the store was very large, clean, modern, and management was fully aware of all the wage and employment laws that are on the books. Had management attempted to force workers to work over 40 hours a week or punished them for having to take a sick day, any attorney - even one just out of law school - could have easily won a case against this grocery store chain. No union rep required. All the union did was take money from my very meager paycheck.

Second time, I was an employee of the California State Bar. I worked with attorneys from sunup to sundown; hell, I was surrounded by 'em. If my employer had tried to discriminate against any of the staff, refused to give vacation pay or whatever, they'd have had a major battle on their hands - not just from the attorneys we worked with, but also from the attorneys on staff - and they would have lost, hands down. What possible reason could the State Bar have for needing a union with so many attorneys in the building? Answer: they liked taking money from my paycheck and adding it to theirs.

Screw unions.

Labor unions have done tremendous things for all workers in this country. I'm in absolute agreement. But this isn't 1927 anymore

Exactly. The only reasons unions exist today is to support the outrageous salaries top union people pay themselves.

I'm well aware of the history of unions.

Your posts don't indicate that you do. Quite the opposite.


As far as a monopoly on wages - the rest of us seem to get by just fine.

Thanks, of course, to those "evil" unions and all the benefits they won for you.

Don't worry that is changing and you are losing those benefits you hate so much. They raised the limit from 40 hours to 50 hours before overtime kicks in a couple years ago. Now they are pushing health insurance costs back on the employees.

Pretty soon you will be on a flat level with Chinese workers, just like you want.


Businesses compete with each other for workers.

Not anymore. Now they just pick up their factories and go elsewhere.


If you're competent and have skills, you stand to do very well. If not, well, perhaps you'd better improve yourself.

Yeah, tell that to my unemployed friend with his MBA who is constantly being told he is "overqualified" for every job he applies for.





Labor unions have done tremendous things for all workers in this country. I'm in absolute agreement.

Why doesn't that seem sincere?


But this isn't 1927 anymore and I'm not going to join a union for nostalgia.

nobody is telling you that you have to join a union.

Exactly. The only reasons unions exist today is to support the outrageous salaries top union people pay themselves.

Can you cite some examples?

Are any of them anywhere near corporate executive pay?

Any of them making $1.7 Billion a year?

A union is an upfront effort to monopolize the supply of labor to a given employer.

Incorrect.

The employers already posess a monopoly on employment and wages.

Unions are the logical attempt to level that playing field so that employees are not taken advantage of and abued as they commonly were before Unions existed.

The ONLY power any employee has is to withhold labor. Individually, that power is nothing, since the individual is expendable. Collectively however, labor has leverage to negotiate for living wages.

Taking advantage of employees is profitable and so employers actively seek to do exactly that in the absense of unions.

I suggest you read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair for some idea what it was like and would be again without unions.

Can you cite some examples?

Just type "union boss salary" into Google and you'll find a long list of articles noting not only the excessive salaries union officials pay themselves, but revealing the even more disturbing habit of union bosses to regularly practice embezzlement, nepotism, and fraud, who are known to have mob affiliations, and who do little to nothing to aid their union members.

Any way you look at it, these union bosses are taking money from the pockets of union members and using it for their own personal gain.

One of the most egregious offenders was Gus Bevona, ousted president of New York janitors' local, who was paid $531,529 in 1997, or 17 times what his members earned on average.

Gus Bevona, boss of the 52,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32B-32J. (http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=2513)

It isn’t just the $500,000 in multiple salaries feeding the portly Bevona’s all-you-can-eat lifestyle that miffs Guzman and the other reformers. Nor is it the huge penthouse office or even the spectacle of Bevona’s sumptuous 5,541-square-foot Babylon, Long Island home, recently appraised at $860,000 and sporting three full baths, a boat house, a pool and two power boats moored to his private pier.

The thing that galvanizes his opponents is how bad the union’s rank-and-file does by comparison--and how little Bevona has done to improve their lot. Residential doormen and janitors, regardless of time on the job, earn less than $30,245 annually, and that is only if they stay with the same employer for 30 months. New hires earn 20 percent less.

The insurgents--members who challenge the entrenched structure of the union--say Bevona stood idle as commercial building managers severely undermined the union’s strength by hiring non-union cleaning firms. In response, union firms have had to lower their wages and standards to compete. In the last seven years, 500 employers have pulled out of the union’s master contract with building owners. As a result, the union has lost 13,500 members since 1991, and has been forced to jack up dues to pay for the loss and Bevona’s lush lifestyle. Still, the union boss has been able to maintain a powerful local network of 1,000 allied shop stewards, who have helped him beat back reformers in low-turnout union elections. During the last three years, Bevona has also turned back two bylaws challenges that would have curbed his power and his salary.

Need more?

A condition of working for one of Illinois' most politically powerful unions was giving the boss $100 a month, according to union members seeking to fire that boss by defeating him in an upcoming election.

Six members of Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday alleging what they described as a salary kickback scheme. The six members, four of whom have been salaried business agents of the local, back Local 150 Treasurer Joe Ward, who aims to unseat President and Business Manager William Dugan in an August election.

They allege the union, under bylaws that give Dugan "autocratic authority," will not properly investigate their claims.

The suit alleges that Dugan for 15 years has demanded that his more than 125 employees make $100 monthly payments he "euphemistically referred to as contributions to his `Christmas Fund.'" In reality, the alleged payments were kickbacks to Dugan, who has the sole power to hire, fire and set salaries at Local 150, the suit alleges.

"Dugan unlawfully converted and misappropriated union funds for his own personal use and benefit," it states. –Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/chi-0701180094jan18,1,7939102.story?coll=chi-newslocalssouthwest-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)

More?

A seven-term Democratic state assemblyman who is president of the nation's largest municipal labor council was arrested on racketeering charges Tuesday, accused of stealing more than $2.2 million from the state, labor unions and even a Little League fund.

Brian M. McLaughlin, 54, was accused in an indictment of teaming with associates to steal money from several organizations in which he held official positions. They allegedly stole money from labor unions, the state of New York and not-for-profit groups.

``This case lends new meaning to the term `hand in the till,''' agreed U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia.

According to a 186-page indictment unsealed Tuesday, McLaughlin and others from 1995 through 2006 engaged in racketeering by using union money to pay personal expenses, including credit card bills, rent and home improvements.
Garcia said union members whose dues were siphoned off by McLaughlin and his friends suffered the most, financially and with hits to their dignity as he turned them into a private work force available for major construction projects or to change a light bulb.

McLaughlin directed union members to take his dog to the doctor, hang Christmas lights, shovel snow, clean out a barn and look for rodents in his basement, the prosecutor said. Sometimes, he added, they were called upon to deliver money to his friends.

Garcia said McLaughlin lived lavishly with his stolen money, buying his wife an $80,000 Mercedes Benz and using other money for a country club membership, a rehearsal dinner for his son's wedding, a wide-screen plasma television and renovations on his Long Island home in Nissequoque near the Hamptons. Other money went to pay rent on Albany and Queens residences and to pay off personal credit bills, Garcia said.

The indictment accused McLaughlin of working with others to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal payments and other things of value from companies in the street lighting and traffic signal industry. McLaughlin is the only one named in the indictment.

The indictment accused McLaughlin of committing mail fraud, embezzlement, money laundering and labor bribery by diverting money from various funds he controlled or had access to for his own use.

Among the funds identified by the indictment were McLaughlin's political campaign committee, union accounts meant to provide benefits for union members and even contributions meant to support a Little League baseball program.

The indictment said McLaughlin and others misappropriated state funds by creating fictitious positions on his legislative staff, by providing McLaughlin with a share of salary for one purported employee and by submitting false expense forms.

The indictment said McLaughlin helped friends as well, including providing 16 checks from a Street Lighting Association union fund meant to benefit union employees between May 1997 and October 2003 to a friend. That woman spent the approximately $21,900 in checks on personal expenses, the indictment said. In September 2000, he gave a $1,000 check to another woman with whom he had a personal relationship, the indictment said. --1010Wins (http://1010wins.com/pages/109593.php?contentType=4&contentId=224753)

Oh, but there's more!

NJ Local Bosses Accused of Gross Nepotism
Some of the highest-paying jobs at Local 734 of the Laborers Intl. Union of N. America -- which represents thousands of workers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania -- had little to do with digging ditches. There was the wife of one former union official, who was hired after her husband was convicted on federal labor law violations for attempting to create a no-show job. She received $111,799 to come in twice a week to listen to voice mail messages from members with benefits questions.

Then there was the accountant who paid his mother-in-law $650 a week for part-time work as a bookkeeper while charging the local's pension and welfare funds $182,000 a year for her services. And the business partner of another former official who was hired as the office manager of a satellite office at the Jersey Shore and paid $123,500 to supervise two people.

The Laborers' union now is seeking a federal investigation into the New Jersey local, claiming that members were defrauded of more than $2 million in a scheme that saw the hiring of relatives and business cronies to perform "non-essential, part-time and ruse jobs at grossly excessive salaries," reports Ted Sherman of the Newark Star-Ledger.

In a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Newark, LIUNA trustees said Local 734 was riddled with no-show jobs and ill-defined, overpaid positions -- many of them connected to former executive board member August "Auggie" Vergalito, who left the local after he pleaded guilty in 1997 to unlawfully concealing payments he made from the welfare and educational fund. Among those who benefited included his wife, a daughter, three sons-in-law, a former son-in-law and two business associates, the lawsuit claimed.

In New Jersey, an independent hearing officer for the union, Peter F. Vaira, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, concluded that most of the jobs held by Vergalito's family and friends were of little value to the union's operation. For example, he noted that Jamie Dolan -- a daughter of Vergalito who was married to Edward Dolan, a Local 734 official -- was hired as a confidential officer for the local after her husband was convicted in 1995 on federal embezzlement charges.

Dolan's job required her to be on call from Friday through Monday, and listen to voice mail messages from members trying to resolve benefits questions. "In reality, she came into the office and took the messages off the voice mail two days a week," Vaira found. In 2003, she responded to 109 calls -- earning a salary of $111,799.

"This averages to approximately two calls per week, at approximately $1,000 a call," Vaira said in his findings, which were filed with the federal lawsuit.

The hearing officer also raised questions about the local's connections to organized crime. According to Vaira, Vergalito was observed by an FBI surveillance team entering the Soho Grand Hotel in New York about the same time as Dominick Cirillo, identified then as the acting boss of the Genovese crime family. He said Vergalito was seen at the hotel on at least 13 separate occasions in 1999 -- often on Wednesdays -- and was seen in the company of Cirillo at the hotel bar at least once. --Newark Star-Ledger (http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=760)

Still more!

John "Buddy" Ruel liked a good time.

He'd slap down a credit card to pay for booze, items from an adult toy shop, limousine rides, even an escort service, sources said.

The only problem, the credit card wasn't his, officials said. It belonged to the Chicago Ironworkers District Council, a powerful union group that Ruel headed for years.

On Tuesday, the federal government moved against the 61-year-old for his alleged excesses, charging him with "converting the labor organization's funds to his own use" over at least seven years by using a union credit card and phone card for his own personal whims. --http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050119/ai_n9497882

Had enough?

Imagine belonging to a union in which seniority is a drawback, retirees collect less than half of what they should in pension benefits, and a "defense" fund is missing at least $12 million. A health insurer who participating doctors and dentists say they can't count on for payment is chosen because one its executives is married to the union president's daughter, and the president puts his son on the executive board even though he lacks the basic qualification for appointment.

Then imagine that three of the union's top officers - the president, secretary-treasurer and pension fund administrator, who happens to be the secretary'-treasurer's girlfriend - are among those charged in a racketeering indictment whose marquee name is Matty "The Horse" Ianniello, the acting boss of the Genovese crime family.

You don't have to imagine those things if you're a member of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181, the private-sector local responsible for student transportation services for the Department of Education.

Dissidents within the local describe sweetheart arrangements between the union leadership and owners of the companies that provide the school buses, under which harsh discipline of employees goes unchallenged by the union and questionable sales of portions of a company's route to another firm lead to senior employees getting the least-desirable assignments.

According to the dissidents, attempts to get financial information from the union's leadership are rebuffed, and intimidation is used when needed. During Mr. Battaglia's regime, Mr. LaRoche said, the Local 1181 president's two sons, Anthony and Salvatore Jr., have served as security guards at the union's Ozone Park headquarters, blocking union members from gaining access to any part of the building other than the credit union.

Village Voice investigative reporter Tom Robbins reported last month that Anthony Battaglia was paid $104,000 last year by Local 1181, which he serves as an executive board member even though, Mr. LaRoche said, he lacks the appropriate qualification to hold union office: "he never drove a school bus." Salvatore Battaglia Jr., Mr. Robbins reported, was paid $54,650 by the union's benefit funds, although, Mr. LaRoche said, his primary function appears to be blocking access to the part of the building where the union's medical office is located.

Intimidation is also allegedly deployed to prevent the wrong questions from being debated at union meetings. Some dissidents who raised unwanted questions later had the brake linings and starter wires on their vehicles cut, actions that would have placed the children they transport in potentially lethal danger if the sabotage had not been discovered. --The Chief-Leader (http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2006/0512/Razzle_Dazzle/)

Not done yet!

John Sweeney was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over a 13-year period when he left his post as president of Local 32B-32J, a janitors’ local union, in 1981 to become president of the parent Service Employees International Union, according to records of the U.S. Department of Labor.

From 1982 through 1994, Sweeney received a total of at least $449,642 from the Local 32B-32J treasury, government documents reveal, in addition to his substantial six-figure salary as SEIU president.

The yearly handouts to Sweeney came from a private quid pro quo deal he had worked out with Gus Bevona, who took over the local union and who achieved widespread notoriety for his $412,000 annual salary, his union-paid penthouse and the $1.5 million “golden parachute” from the local when he was compelled to retire.

In 1982, Sweeney’s first full year as SEIU president, he pocketed $19,459 from the local union, but that amount ballooned to an average $70,000 in the ensuing years when Bevona cooked up a novel title, “executive adviser,” for him, through an amendment to the union’s constitution.

Now here is another outrageous part of this labor scandal. At the same time that Sweeney was collecting annual payoffs from Local 32B-32J, he put Bevona on the SEIU payroll as international vice president at a salary of $79,194 a year. --The Labor Educator (http://www.laboreducator.org/sweeneypay.htm)

I trust I've made my point. Unions are useless, primarily because union bosses are corrupt. But if you'd like to do more reading on your own, may I suggest taking a look at the Organized Labor Accountability Project (http://www.nlpc.org/olap.asp), begun in 1998 and overseen by the National Legal and Policy Center. Their Union Corruption Update is very interesting reading....

Unions are the logical attempt to level that playing field so that employees are not taken advantage of and abued as they commonly were before Unions existed.

Taking advantage of employees is profitable and so employers actively seek to do exactly that in the absense of unions.

As evidenced above, it's not employers that are screwing union members...

:rolleyes:

One of the most egregious offenders was Gus Bevona, ousted president of New York janitors' local, who was paid $531,529 in 1997, or 17 times what his members earned on average.

And the average CEO of a fortune 500 Corporation makes over 400 times what the average worker does. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7126118)




Need more?

I sure do. I remain unconvinced that unions are no longer necessary.


As evidenced above, it's not employers that are screwing union members...

As evidenced above, employers are screweing all workers and those workers get no say in the matter.

At least union members can vote for their officials. That gives them more accountability to the workers then any corporate executive.

The idea of Unions as a counterbalance to employers is a sound one. However, it's just gotten way out of hand. Unions no longer serve the intrests of their members.

The idea of Unions as a counterbalance to employers is a sound one.

Yes, it is.

However, it's just gotten way out of hand. Unions no longer serve the intrests of their members.

Both sides have gotten out of hand. Why get rid of only one side?
How does that help?

Not true!

Would you care to bet?
http://63.151.139.5/publications/jobs_pay/03/no1/jpe05.html
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2005/11/how_low_can_man.html


We still had plenty of manufacturing jobs then. We didn't really start to hear the "sucking sound" until the 90s, after NAFTA. Chrysler didn't get rid of most of it's manufacturing plants until starting in 1999. I should know, I work there.

Then you simply do not understand the economy. That certainly qualifies as a definitive rebuttal. :rolleyes:


It is only called a "global economy" in America. Everyone else has protections for their economies. We are the only ones leaving ourselves wide open to be taken advantage of.

NOt really, They have this organization called the WTO. It establishes the rules for everybody. No exceptions.


Yes, and that is BAD! It does NOT benefit America one iota!
The businesses who benefit are multinational, not American. They do not pass ANY savings onto the consumers.
When Nike moved its manufacturing out of America, the prices of their shoes did not go down one penny.

That is so ridiculous it is laughable.

This response is very long on rhetoric and twice as short on substance.

Would you care to bet?

You are arguing over when it happened but not the fact that it has happened.



NOt really, They have this organization called the WTO. It establishes the rules for everybody. No exceptions.

Actually, only WTO members. Hardly "everybody".
And the WTO is not without it's problems.

Martin Khor argues that the WTO does not manage the global economy impartially, but in its operation has a systematic bias toward rich countries and multinational corporations, harming smaller countries which have less negotiation power. Some examples of this bias are:

Rich countries are able to maintain high import duties and quotas in certain products, blocking imports from developing countries (e.g. clothing);
The increase in non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping measures allowed against developing countries;
The maintenance of high protection of agriculture in developed countries while developing ones are pressed to open their markets;
Many developing countries do not have the capacity to follow the negotiations and participate actively in the Uruguay Round; and
The TRIPs agreement which limits developing countries from utilizing some technology that originates from abroad in their local systems (including medicines and agricultural products).


I said:
Originally Posted by dharmabum
Yes, and that is BAD! It does NOT benefit America one iota!
The businesses who benefit are multinational, not American. They do not pass ANY savings onto the consumers.
When Nike moved its manufacturing out of America, the prices of their shoes did not go down one penny.

That is so ridiculous it is laughable.

To which you lamely replied:

This response is very long on rhetoric and twice as short on substance.

Translation - you have nothing. You have no relevent response to any of the points I made.

Your posts don't indicate that you do. Quite the opposite.

What my posts indicate is that I'm talking about the current situation, not the sweat shops of old.

Thanks, of course, to those "evil" unions and all the benefits they won for you.

Being a salaried employee in an office, I can't off the top of my head think of any benefits unions have won for me. And let's please try to keep this exchange intelligent - I haven't called unions "evil." I don't care for them, but neither do I think they should be done away with. People are more than welcome to do what they will with their own careers.

Don't worry that is changing and you are losing those benefits you hate so much. They raised the limit from 40 hours to 50 hours before overtime kicks in a couple years ago. Now they are pushing health insurance costs back on the employees.

Again, I'm salaried, so I don't get overtime. Health insurance costs are skyrocketing. Why is the employer solely responsible for covering this increase?

Pretty soon you will be on a flat level with Chinese workers, just like you want.

I really thought you were smarter than this.

Not anymore. Now they just pick up their factories and go elsewhere.

See my posted article about the amount of investment pouring into this country from abroad. Overall we're doing just fine.

Yeah, tell that to my unemployed friend with his MBA who is constantly being told he is "overqualified" for every job he applies for.

OK, bring your friend over and I'll tell him that he needs to go train himself in a field that is in greater demand or he needs to obtain some skills that are in demand in his area.

Why doesn't that seem sincere?

Because you've made all sorts of assumptions about what I think from not enough information.

And the average CEO of a fortune 500 Corporation makes over 400 times what the average worker does.

Since we're averaging the salary of all workers, wouldn't it make sense to average the salaries of all CEOs? Granted, the number wouldn't seem so outrageous.

Being a salaried employee in an office, I can't off the top of my head think of any benefits unions have won for me.

Do you get vacation days? Sick days? Do you have a pension? 401k?
If not, then you should learn to negotiate better.
Or join a union. :)


I don't care for them, but neither do I think they should be done away with.

Then why are you arguing with me for saying they shouldn't be done away with? You should be agreeing with me if you really felt that way.


Again, I'm salaried, so I don't get overtime. Health insurance costs are skyrocketing. Why is the employer solely responsible for covering this increase?

Do you begrudge those people who do get overtime for having a benefit you don't get? Is that why you see them as "lazy and complacent", because they get something you don't, so surely it cannot be deserved? :rolleyes:



See my posted article about the amount of investment pouring into this country from abroad. Overall we're doing just fine.

Yup, they are buying our country out from under us, but you keep on drinking that kool-aid and pretending everything is "just fine".

:rolleyes:

OK, bring your friend over and I'll tell him that he needs to go train himself in a field that is in greater demand or he needs to obtain some skills that are in demand in his area.

Tell me, smart guy. Lets hear your detailed ideas about what everyone can do to "succeed". I will relay your wisdom.




Since we're averaging the salary of all workers, wouldn't it make sense to average the salaries of all CEOs? Granted, the number wouldn't seem so outrageous.

Because then you are including every tom, dick and harry who has filed an "LLC" for a homebased business with no real income.

You would then have to include all workers, including the unemployed, to be fair.

ahhhh...bummer, duuuude.

if it's not recovered by next Monday, i'm changing my avatar for one week, and FT gets to pick the substitution.:matrix:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/05/markets/stockswatch/index.htm?cnn=yes

FT, pick something good. I hate that godzilla.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/05/markets/stockswatch/index.htm?cnn=yes

FT, pick something good. I hate that godzilla.
just nothing obscene...degrading i can handle.


(keep in mind, it's only for a week)

As evidenced above, employers are screweing all workers and those workers get no say in the matter.

I point you to the US Department of Labor:

The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is responsible for administering and enforcing some of our nation’s most comprehensive labor laws, including: the minimum wage, overtime, and child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA); worker protections provided in several temporary visa programs; and the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the Service Contract Act (SCA).

The unions are nothing more than middle men, raping workers' paychecks under the guise of "protecting" them from employers who, BY LAW, must obey federal and state employment legislation. When an employer does not follow these legal requirements, the state and federal labor departments prosecute. Employees can also obtain independent counsel to go after employers who do not follow employment legislation.

Unions do nothing more than serve themselves.

You are arguing over when it happened but not the fact that it has happened.

I stated when it happened, you're the one arguing about when it happened.




Actually, only WTO members. Hardly "everybody".
And the WTO is not without it's problems.

Who isn't a member of the WTO. :rolleyes:

Whether the WTO has problems or not is irrelevant. You stated that many countries protect their own industries without offering a single example. This is what i mean by short on substance.


I said:


To which you lamely replied:


Translation - you have nothing. You have no relevent response to any of the points I made.

Actually all you've done is make broad assertions using Nike as an example. That constitutes long rhetoric, short substance.
I'll take your Nike and raise you a Walmart as an example of a company that has lowered prices to consumers benefit and done thru off-shoring.

Do you get vacation days? Sick days? Do you have a pension? 401k?
If not, then you should learn to negotiate better.
Or join a union. :)

I didn't realize that unions were responsible for every nice benefit ever invented.

Then why are you arguing with me for saying they shouldn't be done away with? You should be agreeing with me if you really felt that way.

I thought we were arguing over the current worth of unions, not whether they have a right to exist.

Do you begrudge those people who do get overtime for having a benefit you don't get? Is that why you see them as "lazy and complacent", because they get something you don't, so surely it cannot be deserved? :rolleyes:

I don't begrudge anyone whatever benefits they get. It doesn't affect me. I think that unions have a tendency to stifle the abilities of companies to react and change processes to compete (the "that's not in my job description" phenomenon) and makes it darn near impossible to get rid of less gifted employees.

Yup, they are buying our country out from under us, but you keep on drinking that kool-aid and pretending everything is "just fine".

I'm old enough to remember the panic over the Japanese buying up our country during the 80's. As I recall, it was after they bought one of the major landmark buildings in NYC. 25 years later the Japanese have yet to even be the largest foreign property owners in this country. Meanwhile, all of that investment is creating jobs. Jobs are good, right?

Tell me, smart guy. Lets hear your detailed ideas about what everyone can do to "succeed". I will relay your wisdom.

Send your friend over, I'd be happy to advise him.

Because then you are including every tom, dick and harry who has filed an "LLC" for a homebased business with no real income.

They wouldn't have to include them if they didn't want to. They use the Fortune 500 CEOs to get a number that's as outrageous as possible.

You would then have to include all workers, including the unemployed, to be fair.

Then you'd have to include unemployed CEOs.

Reply if you like, I've had enough.

Originally Posted by Evakian
FT, pick something good. I hate that godzilla.

just nothing obscene...degrading i can handle.


(keep in mind, it's only for a week)

Here's your avatar.

http://www.eyeballsun.org/capmikee/wanted/wantedthumb.gif

Here's the url ------- http://www.eyeballsun.org/capmikee/wanted/wantedthumb.gif

Not bad, 3 Cowboys and a Playboy.

Here's your avatar.

http://www.eyeballsun.org/capmikee/wanted/wantedthumb.gif

Here's the url ------- http://www.eyeballsun.org/capmikee/wanted/wantedthumb.gif
that's the worst you can do?...ok~shrug~

I point you to the US Department of Labor:


History shows that the close relationship between corporations and government have worked against the common working man. The average worker cannot afford to fight a legal battle with a corporation. They don't have the resources to compete with a corporation who has teams of lawyers on staff. We cannot rely on the government alone to protect us either. The government is corruptable. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act has gone unenforced for decades because of corporate influence.

Laws protecting workers are great but they can't be relied upon to do the job by themselves. Unions are not even necessary everywhere. The threat that employees can organize if the situation warrents it does part of the job of keeping corporations in line. If corporations knew the workers were incapable of organizing then they would take advantage of them, as they have so many times in the past.

The average worker cannot afford to fight a legal battle with a corporation. They don't have the resources to compete with a corporation who has teams of lawyers on staff.

When an employer flagrantly ignores labor laws, there are any number of attorneys who will take the case on a contingency basis. (I know, it happened to me.) In addition, the state and/or federal government will also prosecute at no cost to the employee.

The government is corruptable.

And unions aren't?

Laws protecting workers are great but they can't be relied upon to do the job by themselves.

No kidding. That's why god invented attorneys.

Unions are not even necessary everywhere.

Where are they necessary?

black tuesday as in the time we couldn't get on this board?


i was miserable!

The senate just gave the OK for airport screeners to unionize.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_go_co/airport_screeners

Go dems.

Wouldnt like to be in DC and caled Libby at the moment

that's the worst you can do?...ok~shrug~

No.

I could have found several (did, actually) that were FAR more demeaning....but I didn't want to.

I even thought about simply giving you a different godzilla avatar, simply because I too have shot my mouth off on here and said things that were stupid and that I regretted ......... but I finally opted for the one above, since I surmised that (a) you would probably simply refain from posting for one week anyway, and (b), if not, I don't think you or anyone else will suffer much harm from seeing it a few times over the course of a week.

That's why god invented attorneys.

And who is going to be able to afford a better attorney, the corporation or the individual worker?

Workers cannot expect to compete with the power of the company unless they act collectively.

And I don't mean class action lawsuits because all those do is make the attorneys rich.

that's the worst you can do?...ok~shrug~
Change the avatar to fulfill your end of the deal.

Change the avatar to fulfill your end of the deal.
hey, the site went down i was trying to change it, and some of us to work from time to time:rolleyes:
i was starting to think it was my fault:o
but a week is a week.

BTW-a "deal" requires something from both parties.

No.

I could have found several (did, actually) that were FAR more demeaning....but I didn't want to.

I even thought about simply giving you a different godzilla avatar, simply because I too have shot my mouth off on here and said things that were stupid and that I regretted ......... but I finally opted for the one above, since I surmised that (a) you would probably simply refain from posting for one week anyway, and (b), if not, I don't think you or anyone else will suffer much harm from seeing it a few times over the course of a week.
ok, maybe you're not completely evil?

hey, the site went whena was trying to change it, and some of us to work from time to time:rolleyes:
Change it from work.

Lazy oaf.
BTW-a "deal" requires something from both parties.
Tell that to Tony Soprano.

Change it from work.

Lazy oaf.

Tell that to Tony Soprano.
i teach truck drivers how to load car carriers-not a lot of internet access in the middle of a truck lot..and it was still down during my lunch break:p


and unlike you, i don't try to carry on a conversation with my TV.

When an employer flagrantly ignores labor laws, there are any number of attorneys who will take the case on a contingency basis. (I know, it happened to me.) In addition, the state and/or federal government will also prosecute at no cost to the employee.


yeah, that's why it's taken wal-mart employees so long to get their freakin' OT pay:rolleyes:

and unlike you, i don't try to carry on a conversation with my TV.
Try it, you always win the debates. Unless it is Geraldo Rivera with that crazy moustache.

That guy who sells Ronco ovens usually wins too.

Try it, you always win the debates. Unless it is Geraldo Rivera with that crazy moustache.

That guy who sells Ronco ovens usually wins too.
Ron Popeil OWNS you! :D

Ron Popeil OWNS you! :D
Oh yeah? Try to set and forget this.

*puts on wifebeater shirt and cracks knuckles*

And who is going to be able to afford a better attorney, the corporation or the individual worker?

When an employer flagrantly ignores labor laws, there are any number of attorneys who will take the case on a contingency basis. (I know, it happened to me.) In addition, the state and/or federal government will also prosecute at no cost to the employee.

When an employer flagrantly ignores labor laws, there are any number of attorneys who will take the case on a contingency basis. (I know, it happened to me.) In addition, the state and/or federal government will also prosecute at no cost to the employee.


And who is going to be able to afford a better attorney, the corporation or the individual worker?

The really good lawyers don't take cases on contingency.

The government will only prosecute criminal charges, they won't do anything for the employee in civil court.

The companies always settle. So they do pay, even if it's not all that they should.

I'm afraid you've got this one backwards, dharma.

Many attorneys take cases on contingency -- meaning they get paid only if they win -- and will not go to court with a baseless lawsuit. There's really no motivation to bring a frivolous lawsuit, as it’s not worth their time and effort. Ergo, any solid case will easily interest any legit attorney.

The really good lawyers don't take cases on contingency.

You mean attorneys like Clarence Darrow? Gloria Allred? Mark Garagos? (I mention these particular individuals only because they're people we've all heard about, but every lawyer takes at least a few cases for no pay every year - attorneys in the US are recommended under American Bar Association ethical rules to contribute at least fifty hours of free legal service per year. It's called pro bono work. Some state bars require fewer hours, but ALL require at least some pro bono work annually.)

The reality is, really good lawyers often take cases on contingency, because there’s no downside to the case. They see an obvious win, so they’re happy to do the upfront work for free.

Some state bars require fewer hours, but ALL require at least some pro bono work annually.)


Actually, neither of the state bars I belong to require pro bono work. I agree with you 100% on there being plenty of really good attorneys working contingency.

The reality is, really good lawyers often take cases on contingency, because there’s no downside to the case. They see an obvious win, so they’re happy to do the upfront work for free.

Sorry Marz, in my experience that is just not true. My father and sister are both attorneys.

I know a lot of really, really good lawyers and none of them do any pro bono work. Not even for their best friends.

There is no requirement in my state for lawyers to do any pro-bono work. Perhaps there are in some, but certainly not all states.

Pro bono or public defense are what new lawyers who have just passed the bar do in order to get experience and perhaps make a name for themselves. Sure, some of them are good lawyers but it is a real crap shoot.

Dharma, do you personally know someone who has been in every single profession or situation?

Dharma, do you personally know someone who has been in every single profession or situation?

I have been around, Dark.

I don't know any circus clowns. Does that make you happy?

I have been around, Dark.

I don't know any circus clowns. Does that make you happy?
Hehe... I was just wondering, because is seems like you claim to know someone who's an expert in pretty much everything about which there's a discussion...