Re: Union discussion

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> And I think that the reason we are misunderstanding each other

> is because you are now saying that you're talking about unions " at

> present " , while I was defending and explaining the *need* for unions

> in the first place.

I mentioned that when I said " History is a good place for them. " I

never argued that they were never necessary-- I have no opinion about

that. I don't particularly care about whether they were necessary in

the past, because the past is as it was, and it cannot be changed. It

is irrelevant to wonder about whether they were necessary in the past,

because it cannot be changed.

> I could not have guessed that you were somehow

> divorcing the history of unions from their present state.

Buggy whips were once a useful item-- you would be, in essence,

supporting the manufacture of buggy whips now because they were once

useful? Of course they're divorced-- there is one big difference

between the past and the present. We can change what happens in the

present.

> I also

> have to admit that I don't know the present state of unions, and I

> doubt you do either.

Makes no difference what their state is.

> I spoke of my grandfather's involvement in unions. But you dismissed

> that with a " The truth hurts. <g> "

Not quite. What I said is that unions should be busted, and that a

politician that busts them is not " selling out the country. " You then

said your grandfather would cry to hear me say that.

> That seemed to say that you were

> dismissing their struggles and sacrifices, and saying they were in

> the wrong after all, because you disagree with the *idea* of unions.

Essentially, I do disagree with the idea of unions. I simply do not

have any opinion of them prior to present times.

> And the point over which we

You do.

> seem to have hard feelings is that I am

> saying that you should *stop* saying " That is irrelevant. "

Your statement that I should stop saying " that is irrelevant " is

irrelevant. I won't stop saying it, because it is reflective of my

opinion. Everything I write is from my perspective; that much should be

obvious.

> It is not

> conducive to civil debate, but is conducive to flame war. You set

> yourself up as the sole judge of what is relevant, and refuse to

> listen to people's explanation of *why* they think it is relevant.

You think that me using " that is irrelevant " rather than " I think that

is irrelevant " actually changes whether I consider the other person's

writings?

> It's like putting you head in the sand, or your hands over your ears,

> going " la, la, la, la, la " , or my more colorful phrase. That's why I

> said that, you dismissed my ex- planations, you didn't bother to look

> up the incidents I mentioned, saying that they were all history, and

> irrelevant to the present.

And they are. Looking them up would serve no purpose; it does not

matter *how* bad the workers were treated. It doesn't matter *how*

useful buggy whips were. I could not be clearer than " that is

irrelevant. " It was irrelevant. I said that a politician that busted

unions was not " selling out the country, " and suddenly you are thinking

of workers in 1920 America.

> Were the first 20 years of your life irrelevant to the rest of it

> since then? The present state of " anything " is a summation of its

> history, I would say. And there's the " Those who do not remember

> History " , yada yada. I think its relevant to know the history of

> trade unionism, as all of the same elements are still at work.

You were attempting to show that unions are good now because of the way

people were treated in years past. Had you not had such a reaction to

my blunt but correct statement that this was not relevant, you may have

understood what I was writing-- but you were so busy being bent out of

shape that you failed to " hear " what I was saying-- all the while

accusing me of the same, and making an ad hominem attack... after which

you tried to pass it off as humor, which was pure bull.

> > A lot of insults are later passed off as " humor. " It's a cop out,

> > and I am not buying it. Telling me that I have my head up my ass

> > is not humor.

>

> A lot of humor has a grain of truth in it. Your second line there

> sounds hard-bitten, kind of belligerent.

It was. You know damn well that I react harshly when people attack me,

and you attacked me. I'm sure you were just waiting to make another

cheap-shot about Kaiden like you did once before. You can be pretty

passive-aggressive with those little sniping insults, trying to provoke

people into attacks on you that you can then denounce them for (same as

you did to Steve)... and all the while you're sitting there, thinking

you are high and mighty, haughtily denigrating the actions of the person

you are attacking.

> And I did not say that to

> you. (When I did say it to Red, he didn't go all ape-shit over it.)

He would had the right to, because your attack on him was out of line,

just as your attack on me was.

> What I did say was, " anally introspective " (which really strikes me

> as funny), and only suggested that it may apply to you. That's what

> happens of being dismissive, it just naturally makes people angry.

No-- telling people they have their head up their ass makes them angry.

Don't try to weasel out of it by saying it was a joke, or that you

weren't *really* saying it about me because you said it " might " apply to

me. You know what you wrote, and so do I. I'm not stupid.

> You could make the same point by saying, " I don't see the relevance

> of that " , and then people would just try to explain it, without

> having been insulted first.

Don't try to equate them. Telling people something is irrelevant is

nothing like telling them that they have their head up their ass. Maybe

in your world your conduct was perfectly good, but that's not reality.

The reality is that I denounced your words, and you personally attacked

me (and Red). If you don't know the difference... learn, because my

tolerance for your apparent ignorance of that distinction is growing

rather thin.

> That is one huge stipulation. " Unions were once needed " . And my

> grandfathers didn't labor in vain to try to bring them about. Thank

> you. We're almost on the same page now. So if I can find something

> AFTER Clinton was elected, it will be relevant? See:

Note that stipulating is not the same as agreeing. I simply do not wish

to argue about that.

> http://www.emergency.com/nc-fire.htm NC Chicken plant fire and

> http://www.emergency-management.net/indl_fire.htm fires list and

> http://www.satyamag.com/apr95/zacharias.html Chicken processing

> Please really read that last one. Imagine yourself working there.

> It's happening NOW!

I could imagine myself finding it unacceptable to work there and not

doing so. Problem solved.

> Why do people accept such jobs? Because that's all they can find.

> When you have kids, you have to do whatever you can to support them,

> and I know, because I had 2 kids before I got out of the Navy, and

> worked at the first place that would hire me.

The preferred order would be to get a good job first, and hopefully some

savings, then have the kids. If someone does this out-of-order, they

certainly cannot blame anyone but themselves for their desperate

condition. I don't see it as valid for someone to go have a bunch of

kids, then complain that the jobs in the area don't pay well enough to

support a bunch of kids.

> Many of the jobs I had,

> I took because they were all that I could find, and get hired for.

That does not mean that the employers you had owed you enough money for

you to live on, just by virtue of you not being able to find other jobs,

nor does it mean that they owed you any kind of work conditions for the

same reason.

> One of those URLs above is a list of tragic fires that have happened,

> and if you'll note, from the 90's on, many of them happened in

> Southeast Asia. They need the protection of unions there, and

> eventually, they will get it. It was a *UNION* that threw the

> Communists out of Poland.

And a union-busting president of the US that did that for the Soviet

Union

[Guest guest]

wrote:

(I wrote)

> > I laughed when I thought of that phrase this afternoon,

> > and when I thought of it, I was not also thinking of you.

> > It did seem appropriate when I saw that you had not given

> > any thought to what I had said, but just dismissed it all,

> > solely because it is contrary to your thinking.

> I could say the very same for your complete disregard of all

> that I have said. You haven't responded to any of my key points-

> not a one.

I do think that I have tried to respond to everything you said,

although not to the thing about no taxes, I didn't want to get

into that. And I think that the reason we are misunderstanding

each other is because you are now saying that you're talking

about unions " at present " , while I was defending and explaining

the *need* for unions in the first place. I could not have

guessed that you were somehow divorcing the history of unions

from their present state. I also have to admit that I don't know

the present state of unions, and I doubt you do either. I have

worked for 40+ years, most of it non-union, 3 years with the

Teamster's Union, and another 3 years in a company union, which

was the worst of all places I've worked. (Sanding and finishing

pianos in a piano factory.)

I spoke of my grandfather's involvement in unions. But you

dismissed that with a " The truth hurts. <g> " That seemed to

say that you were dismissing their struggles and sacrifices,

and saying they were in the wrong after all, because you disagree

with the *idea* of unions.

> If I were NT, and maybe if I were another autistic besides me,

> I probably would now accuse you of not listening-- I know this

>because I have been told I am not listening many times when I

>actually am. I disregard statements like yours because they are not

>relevant in my way of thinking. That is why I told you they were

>irrelevant.

And the point over which we seem to have hard feelings is that

I am saying that you should *stop* saying " That is irrelevant. "

It is not conducive to civil debate, but is conducive to flame

war. You set yourself up as the sole judge of what is relevant,

and refuse to listen to people's explanation of *why* they think

it is relevant. It's like putting you head in the sand, or your

hands over your ears, going " la, la, la, la, la " , or my more

colorful phrase. That's why I said that, you dismissed my ex-

planations, you didn't bother to look up the incidents I mentioned,

saying that they were all history, and irrelevant to the present.

Were the first 20 years of your life irrelevant to the rest of it

since then? The present state of " anything " is a summation of its

history, I would say. And there's the " Those who do not remember

History " , yada yada. I think its relevant to know the history of

trade unionism, as all of the same elements are still at work.

>Since I am trying to explain to you my mental model, it is a

>statement of fact to say that objections like yours are irrelevant.

>I'll try yet again to explain MY point this time, since you have

>completely ignored it each time I have iterated it here.

I'll try to answer as best I can. I have gone through the past

posts, but can't seem to find them.

> > I actually like you, . I have a great deal of respect for

> > what you have said concerning autism, and the advocacy thereof.

> > Everyone can know that. I have never insulted you, no, not this

> > time either, because that was only a bit of humor, though it was

> > also intended to make a point. Sorry you missed it.

> A lot of insults are later passed off as " humor. " It's a cop

> out, and I am not buying it. Telling me that I have my head

> up my ass is not humor.

A lot of humor has a grain of truth in it. Your second line

there sounds hard-bitten, kind of belligerent. And I did not

say that to you. (When I did say it to Red, he didn't go all

ape-shit over it.) What I did say was, " anally introspective "

(which really strikes me as funny), and only suggested that it

may apply to you. That's what happens of being dismissive,

it just naturally makes people angry. You could make the same

point by saying, " I don't see the relevance of that " , and then

people would just try to explain it, without having been insulted

first.

> Now, let me make my point perfectly clear.

> Let's say that there is a business at some time in the past.

> Any time, say, prior to Clinton's election to his first term

> will do. Let's say that business requires its workers to work

> 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. Let's say that the workers have

> production quotas that are wholly unrealistic, and that as the

> workers struggle to almost make the quotas, the quotas are raised.

> Let's say that the employers' goons beat the workers if they do

> not meet production quotas. Let's also say that the workers are

>locked in during the day, and that in a fire that was caused by

>unsafe work conditions, they could not get out, and many of them

>died. Let's also say that the conditions in the workplace were

>truly horrible, with poisonous chemicals in the air and in unsui-

> table storage vessels all around the production floor.

> Have I made it sufficiently terrible yet?

> Okay. Now, does the existence of this place in any way relate

> to my objection to unions today? I say no. It happened in the

> past; we live in a different time than that. I won't argue that

> unions were once needed; I will stipulate to that.

That is one huge stipulation. " Unions were once needed " . And

my grandfathers didn't labor in vain to try to bring them about.

Thank you. We're almost on the same page now. So if I can find

something AFTER Clinton was elected, it will be relevant? See:

http://www.emergency.com/nc-fire.htm NC Chicken plant fire

and

http://www.emergency-management.net/indl_fire.htm fires list

and

http://www.satyamag.com/apr95/zacharias.html Chicken processing

Please really read that last one. Imagine yourself working there.

It's happening NOW!

Why do people accept such jobs? Because that's all they can

find. When you have kids, you have to do whatever you can to

support them, and I know, because I had 2 kids before I got out

of the Navy, and worked at the first place that would hire me.

Many of the jobs I had, I took because they were all that I

could find, and get hired for.

Here's the one on the old Triangle fire:

http:www.csun.edu/~ghy7463/mv2.html

> Does the existence of this place in another country relate to

> my objection to unions today? Again, I say no. I dislike unions

> in the US, in the present. I have no opinion of unions in the

> past or in other countries.

One of those URLs above is a list of tragic fires that have

happened, and if you'll note, from the 90's on, many of them

happened in Southeast Asia. They need the protection of unions

there, and eventually, they will get it. It was a *UNION* that

threw the Communists out of Poland.

Uhhh, I have to go and check something, and since I'm not sure

I'll be able to get back to this page, I'm going to send it now.

I can come back later to pick it up from here. I think this is

the bulk of my reply, though.

Clay

> Now, let's go for the gold. What if this place existed in the US

right now? Would THAT mean that unions were necessary? You guessed

it-- the answer for me is NO. There are so many violations of law

that it would be a criminal matter, one that the government should

fix. It would be no different than the government arresting any other

person who recklessly risked the safety of others in violation of law.

> I hope this illustrates my point in a way that I have been unable to

get through to you. I don't care how bad the abuse is in the past or

in another country-- I am referring to the US, in the present. And if

the laws (hazmat chemical storage, fire code, assault, etc) are being

violated, that is a job for the police, not a labor union. Maybe once

upon a time the police would, in fact, be the oppressors. Maybe then

a union was the only solution people had other than to remain

unemployed, since it was the norm for workplaces to be poor. That's

not relevant, because we don't live in that time now. Nor is it

relevant that this improvement would or would not have taken place

without unions. I am talking about today, as it is now.

>

> Ok. Now about " living wages. "

>

> You have repeatedly ignored my statements that compensation for work

is actually a sale of one's labor on the open market, and that the

payment for that labor is based on the fair market price of that

labor. If a person is working a job that only pays $6 an hour, and he

finds that he cannot live on that, it is false to say that somehow, he

is entitled to a living wage. He is entitled to as much money as he

can get for the services he is selling... and if he can't live on it,

he either needs to improve the value of that which he sells, sell more

of it, or reduce his living expenses.

>

> Let me make an analogy. Let's say that a person grows watermelons

on his land. Let's also pretend that watermelons grow year-round for

this person, and are harvested each month.

>

> At some point, the intrepid watermelon grower finds that the money

he gets for selling his watermelons is not paying the bills; the

mortgage on his house and land (or the rent) and his other living

expenses exceed the net amount he makes after selling his watermelons

and paying for the costs of production. In short, that which he has

to sell is not bringing in enough money to make ends meet.

>

> Now, I ask you: Do the buyers of his watermelons OWE this grower

whatever amount he needs to make ends meet? Are they morally

obligated to pay more for his watermelons than they are worth, on the

free market, because he really needs the money? Should the amount he

gets from selling his watermelons be based on how much his bills are,

or how much his watermelons are worth?

>

> If the answer is that he should get what his watermelons are worth,

then I ask the question you know is coming: Why should the person who

sells his labor, rather than his watermelons, be entitled to " a living

wage " from the buyer of his labor (the employer)? If the labor he

sells is not worth enough to make ends meet, is the buyer of his

product somehow morally obligated to pay more than his services are

worth on the free market?

>

> If the watermelon grower wants to make a living wage, he has a few

choices. He can improve his product (say, he could grow the

watermelons organically, which would mean he could get more money for

them), he can sell more watermelons (which means he has to grow more

watermelons), or he can reduce his living expenses. Or, of course, he

can stop growing watermelons entirely, and try something else... like

making wooden birdhouses, or working at the local hardware store. No

one is going to come along and pay more than his watermelons are

worth-- they will pay him what his melons are worth, nothing more and

nothing less.

>

> The same things apply to workers selling their labor. If they can't

live on what they are getting paid, they can improve the value of

their labor (get more education, or get promoted), increase the amount

of labor they sell (work more hours, or get another job), or reduce

living expenses.

>

> This is the difference between money that is earned and money that

is awarded. Welfare, in any form, including SSI, is awarded. It is

given based on need. Wages are not like that. They're earned-- they

are given based on the value of the labor. It does not matter if the

Wal-Mart stocker is independently wealthy or if he lives in a

cardboard box-- what he earns is based on the market value of the

labor he sells.

>

> I hope this is clear enough for you to understand, because I am

really bending over backwards to try to explain this. I lack the

ability to make it any clearer. It is a fallacy to presume that there

is no such thing as a full-time job that is worth less, on the free

market, than whatever amount you or anyone else decides is " a living

wage. "

>

> What meets your standard for a living wage? I lived for years on

$530 a month. That comes out to $3.08 an hour, after taxes, if I had

worked 40 hours a week for it. That amount is the approximate maximum

that someone on SSI will get in any state but California, which kicks

in an extra amount from state funds.

>

> There are a lot of people living on SSI. It's not comfortable, but

it's better than dying. And, unlike people working at Wal-Mart, you

can't be promoted to a higher-paying form of SSI. And if that amount

is good enough for people that have already passed the government's

tests to prove that they are not capable of substantial work, why

should workers (who can get promoted) be entitled to 2-3 times more

under the banner of " living wage? "

>

> Thus, this talk of " living wages " is kind of irrelevant unless the

person is getting quite a bit less than minimum wage. (My first job,

by the way, was one where I made $3.00 an hour, at the time that

minimum wage was $4.10 an hour).

>

>

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> I can come back later to pick it up from here.

> I think this is the bulk of my reply, though.

It's going to have to be quite a bit later, like

sometime tomorrow. It's my day off, and I got a

lot of things to do. Will do my best to respond

to the remainder.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Just to inject a different viewpoint into the discussion:

Should programmers form a union?

Programmers are exempted from the laws regarding overtime pay, hourly pay,

40-hour work weeks, etc. They are frequently on-call, expected to respond

instantly to the smallest of problems, 24/7, without regard to their

personal lives. They are expected to work 15 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week,

with no additional compensation. In addition to that, they are expected to

spend additional time studying and working to keep current and abreast of

the latest technological developments. If they do not do these things, they

face being fired.

Many programmers are autistic to some degree. They cannot work retail

because of their inability to interact with others well. They may be

physically incapable of manual labor. They may have limited ability to

train for a different career. So their job choices are limited. They

either work for the sweatshops, or they don't work.

So should programmers unionize? Why?

(Feel free to substitute " computer technician, " " network administrator, " or

any other technical job title you like for " programmer; " the same things

tend to apply.)

Elayne

http://cablespeed.com/~solinox/index.htm

" Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection

by that state. "

[Guest guest]

> One of those URLs above is a list of tragic fires that have

> happened, and if you'll note, from the 90's on, many of them

> happened in Southeast Asia. They need the protection of unions

> there, and eventually, they will get it. It was a *UNION* that

> threw the Communists out of Poland.

To say any one group (other then Poles) threw out communists in Poland is

a bit of an exaggeration.

The Roman Catholic Church also was a significant factor (last I checked,

97% of Poles identify as Catholic, most of them going to church - and last

I knew, communists in eastern Europe weren't huge fans of the Roman

Catholic Church). I've been to Poland, and I can say that Catholicism is

very alive in Poland - you can't go anywhere in Poland without seeing its'

influence. (and if you want to see a Polish person get excited, ask him

about the Pope - they are very proud that the leader of the Catholic

church is from Poland; They are equally excited about how they have

changed their society over the last 20 years)

--

[Guest guest]

> Programmers are exempted from the laws regarding overtime pay, hourly pay,

> 40-hour work weeks, etc.

In the US, yes.

> They are frequently on-call, expected to respond

> instantly to the smallest of problems, 24/7, without regard to their

> personal lives. They are expected to work 15 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week,

> with no additional compensation. In addition to that, they are expected to

> spend additional time studying and working to keep current and abreast of

> the latest technological developments. If they do not do these things, they

> face being fired.

I do recommend finding another employer if that is how you are being

treated. I've worked in those kinds of shops, and they aren't much fun.

Not every employer is like that though, although it isn't easy finding

ones that don't ask too much.

Government is good for instance, if you can handle lower pay. I'm kind of

happy to give up pay in exchange for a personal life. (I make about 75%

of what I made 5 years ago in the private sector) But I get two weeks of

sick time a year, two weeks of vacation a year (it will be three next

year), both carry over. I have no on-call responsibilities other then

" best effort " (if we call you and you can come in, we expect you to, and

we'll pay you for it - 2 hour minimum). I do get overtime or comp-time

(at rate of 1.5 hours comp for every hour overtime worked), based on my

election.

Since I've started, I've taken between 1 month and 1.5 months a year off

for the last 4 years. I've always had at least one vacation per year 3

weeks or longer in length. There are very few jobs that that can happen

with, but it can happen in programming sometimes. (I've technically been

an information security officer and a database administrator over

different periods of the last 4 years)

Small companies in my experience are the worst abusers of computer

employees. I try to stay away from most now.

I also stay away from companies where someone else sets my deadlines.

Where I work now, I am involved in setting the schedule for my tasks. I

have less problem working overtime for my own deadline (I call that

" responsibility " ) then working some employer's arbitrary deadline that is

designed for nothing other then to get more work out of me then the

average 40 hours a week.

I do agree that often programmers are expected to work 60 hours a week,

and that isn't cool. I haven't done that for a long time though (and

won't - if an employer wants to fire me for that, that's fine - but I

won't kill myself for a job; I have no problem either with not getting

the raises that someone working 60 hours a week gets - my life is worth

something).

> Many programmers are autistic to some degree. They cannot work retail

> because of their inability to interact with others well.

I disagree with this. Retail consists mostly of scripted interaction.

Programming on average is over 50% face-to-face meeting according to the

studies I've read. And most of those face-to-face meetings *can't* be

scripted.

Sure, it is better suited to me then retail, but not because it is less

social (it isn't). If I wanted less social I'd become a solo OTR truck

driver or an auto mechanic.

> They may be

> physically incapable of manual labor. They may have limited ability to

> train for a different career. So their job choices are limited. They

> either work for the sweatshops, or they don't work.

I agree with everything except the inevitability of sweatshops, as I do

think many of us have other options.

> So should programmers unionize? Why?

I think that the danger there is driving programmer wages in the US even

higher then they are already relative to programmer wages in India.

I do think there are benefits we can get without costing employers much if

anything - telecommuting options, job sharing, part-time employment that

pays well, etc. But these have to be done in a way which doesn't just

make US programmers an expensive choice.

--

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> To say any one group (other then Poles) threw out

> communists in Poland is a bit of an exaggeration.

Not much of an exaggeration.

http://www.polishlibrary.org/review/ThePolishRevolution.htm

" Almost suddenly, and to the amazement of the world, the entire

Polish society took a hint from serious clashes in the city of

Gdansk, and within a short time the country became engulfed in

a fierce struggle against Communist authorities. "

I think that the victory at the shipyards galvanized the Poles,

showed them victory was possible, and made them determined to

get it. It was the catalyst that made it happen.

> The Roman Catholic Church also was a significant factor (last

> I checked, 97% of Poles identify as Catholic, most of them going

> to church - and last I knew, communists in eastern Europe weren't

> huge fans of the Roman Catholic Church). I've been to Poland,

> and I can say that Catholicism is very alive in Poland - you

> can't go anywhere in Poland without seeing its' influence.

> (and if you want to see a Polish person get excited, ask him

> about the Pope - they are very proud that the leader of the

> Catholic church is from Poland; They are equally excited about

> how they have changed their society over the last 20 years)

Yes, I recall that the Pope did have a lot to do with that,

as he visited at the time and spoke about the situation.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Mircea wrote:

> By the way, has anyone at least read my expose

> on market economies, rent etc ? Any opinions ?

I read it, but didn't really understand it. I got

the impression that you know far more than anyone

here on the subject, and if it got no comments, it

was because we don't feel able to offer an opinion.

Clay