Impeachment

[El Kabong]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

So there are 0 drawbacks to Unions? 0, none, nil, nada?

[Kirkland Laing]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.

Back when unions had real political power in America wages kept pace with national income/productivity growth. Since unions have been neutered a back of the envelope calculation says it's cost the median earner twenty thousand dollars a year in income which now stays in their bosses' pockets. That's one point six million in income that the median household has lost in the forty years since Reagan smashed the unions. How many American households, were they to know the facts of the matter, would say you know what these guys are definitely no use at all, who needs an extra one point six million (not incuding benefits like healthcare, pensions, paid holidays/sickleave/maternity/paternity leave etc etc). These unions have clearly outlived their usefulness and should have morphed into sewing circles or cycling clubs.

If the pendulum has swung too far to the other side maybe it's swung too far to the side of capital away from labour? Certainly the entirety of the last forty years of economic numbers would suggest this is the case. I can feel a graph coming on. I'm going to dig a graph up.

So there are 0 drawbacks to Unions? 0, none, nil, nada?

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything. I'm so old I can remember when you were upset about the rigged economy and stagnant wages. Well wages have been stagnant ever since the unions were neutered back under Reagan. There is no significant political force now representing American workers which is why they've been fucked at the drive in for the last forty years. Workers need to have representation and the ability to bargain collectively for a fair share of the economic pie or they don't get it and the last forty years are conclusive evidence of this. So scrap unions, it doesn't matter. Set up workers' councils or workers' representative bodies or whatever you want to call them but workers need representation in the economy or they'll continue to get fucked.

[El Kabong]

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

And specifically in regards to Unions those drawbacks would be?

I'm so old I can remember when you were upset about the rigged economy and stagnant wages.

Yup, still am. You know how you just said...

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

....so what then would be the drawbacks of illegal immigration especially when it comes to the wages of the low and unskilled workers?

[Kirkland Laing]

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

And specifically in regards to Unions those drawbacks would be?

I'm so old I can remember when you were upset about the rigged economy and stagnant wages.

Yup, still am. You know how you just said...

There are drawbacks to any organised group doing anything.

....so what then would be the drawbacks of illegal immigration especially when it comes to the wages of the low and unskilled workers?

There's historically been criminality and corrution in American unions, although it pales into insignificance compared to a. the comprehensively corrupt political system that's bought and paid for by lobbyists and b. the amount of good unions actually did before they were neutered. Corruption has been a problem in every American institution at one time or another and once again the unions were vestal virgins compared to the lobbying system that exists.

As far as illegal workers go here you're on the same side as the unions who want a properly regulated labour market with no employers able to undercut existing wages by employing illegal workers.