US election poll

xbacksideslider said:

Yes, Trump is an amateur; that helped get him elected; lacking polish, his crass fumbles and errors were overlooked.

He spoke the unspeakable - build the wall, euro freeloaders should pay for NATO, illegal aliens, illegal alien crime, racially politicized judges, regulations that force jobs/factories abroad, stupid tax policy, stupid energy policy, stupid climate policy . . . .

But the above is not what really got him elected.

Ethnic Americans stayed home.

Many loyal ethnic Democrats were disgusted with Clinton. They just stayed home.
They should be congratulated. They refused to vote for a lying bribe taker.
They wanted to, but could not. Good for them.

Instead the smug, know it all pundits, condescend.
They refuse to recognize this admirable expression of Black and Hispanic character.
Closet racists that they are, they even say "Blacks who voted for Obama stayed home because Clinton isn't Black."

This, the same racist one party punditocracy that agrees "Blacks and Hispanics are incapable of getting an ID."
This, the same racist one party punditocracy that, in a sellout to school unions, inflicts horrible schools on big city Blacks and Hispanics, and denies them school choice.

Black Lives Matter has a point; big city Democrat pols are caught between two constituencies - police unions, which protect a very few bad police from just punishment for what they do to their Black victims, and their Black citizens.

Someone referenced, "the left's soft bigotry of low expectations." No, it is worse than that. Contrary to the teachings of the engines of our culture, actual palpable racism in America is on and from the left.

Click to expand...

Most of the racists I know are right-wingers. Many of them are careful not to be politically incorrect because they don't want the racist tag. They'd rather be indignant and self-righteous. The left-leaning racists I know are more direct, and yes, honest about their bias. And they're not blanket racists like the righties-they tend to make exceptions for exceptional people, especially ones they know personally.

For someone who claims no political affiliation, you sound an awful lot like a common Republican. They are almost universally anti-union.

Most of the racists I know are left wingers; they compensate for their racism by being lefties.
They are similar to rich left wingers, they too compensate for their guilty wealth by being lefties. Think Hollywood.

I used to have a business partner who vetoed my desire to have offices in a Hispanic part of town; he was a leftie; still is, lives in a very white part of town; I've lived in a very Hispanic part of town for the last 25 years; he's a condescending racist. He denies it, but he is. I've seen him operate.

As for unions, I'm against all monopolies, including unions. Why should I support someone else's monopoly?

On race and unions, unions used to be almost universally racist, keeping others out of their club, nepotistic.
And, of course, Northern white unions discriminated against blacks, viciously kept them out.
Two cornerstones of FDR's New Deal edifice - Northern trade unions and Southern Dixiecrats - the three of 'em allied against Blacks.

FDR could have reversed Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the federal government, and gone back to Lincoln's integration; he didn't.
There are many liberals who are unaware of just how racist the heritage of the Democrat party and its alliance with trade unionism is.

Again, there is racism in the fact that Democrats do nothing about the discriminatory results of public employee unions, especially with regard to police and schools where unions protect a very few bad apples, and too often much of the apple barrel is ethnic, Black or Hispanic. Democrat pols don't seem to care, they ignore it since their unions do more for them, in cash and in kind, than do the minorities. Black Lives Matter might be an exception; it's a fight within the choir.

How is a Union a monopoly? I have been a Union member for 40 years, and I'm a third-generation member. My job has always been about merit. In construction, you are technically considered seasonal, and therefore you can be dismissed at any time for whatever reason the employer sees fit. My Union has always been open to new members, hired at the employers' wishes. We are currently recruiting new hires from the non-union sector, bringing back ex-members who have withdrawn, and training new apprentices all year round.

I don't know if your view of Unions is from personal experience, reading or watching fairy stories on tv, but it has little to do with reality if you think Unions are monopolies. A Union is an organization that collectively bargains for wages and benefits, safety and good working conditions, with employers. We train our craftsmen in-house and are registered with the State as an employment agency.

A contract is the proper basis for all sorts of business and employment dealings and if you don't have one, you don't have shit.
In case Libertarians haven't noticed, the days of the lone cowboy out on the range making his way in the world are long gone. If you think you can go out and get what your work is worth all on your own, by yourself, you're living in a world of fantasy.

And BTW the head honcho of the KKK has lauded our new President-elect. Or course, the KKK is no longer racist, having gone mainstream. They're all Republicans now.

"How is a union a monopoly?"
That question is incredible; you need to think about it

xbacksideslider said:

"How is a union a monopoly?"
That question is incredible; you need to think about it

Click to expand...

If Wal-Mart signs a contract with a Chinese supplier to provide widgets, is that Chinese supplier a "monopoly"? I think it is you who need to do some thinking. Labor is a commodity, according to modern economics.

A cartelized, or unionized, commodity is monopolistic.

Unionism is a legitimate form of industrial democracy. Australian OHS&E laws are simply expressions of common decency - the requirements are performance based - minimise the risk to a level which is tolerable to the stakeholders. What OHS&E laws do the Chinese have ? - the main reason Australian businesses move offshore - exploitation of vulnerable workers. Our jobs are now in those thousands of shipping containers which arrive at our docks.
The fact of the matter is that if we don't move upmarket, to better justify our overheads - we will be dragged down to join the lowest common denominator.

acotrel said:

Unionism is a legitimate form of industrial democracy. Australian OHS&E laws are simply expressions of common decency - the requirements are performance based - minimise the risk to a level which is tolerable to the stakeholders. What OHS&E laws do the Chinese have ? - the main reason Australian businesses move offshore - exploitation of vulnerable workers. Our jobs are now in those thousands of shipping containers which arrive at our docks.
The fact of the matter is that if we don't move upmarket, to better justify our overheads - we will be dragged down to join the lowest common denominator.

Click to expand...

It's a race to the bottom. Without resistance, it won't end until everyone who works will have the same miserable standard of living; subsistence wages, no healthcare, no retirement, work until you die.

If unions were democratic, employees would have a choice of which to join or not to join at all. In all cases I'm aware of, for one trade at one company, there's no choice.

Yes, Frank, true. Choice is denied in the closed shop system. All employees are forced to join, or be fired.

Yes, Alcotrel, trade unionism is legitimate. The devil is in the details. Problems arise when politicians owned by unions enact laws which legalize the monopoly aspects - forcing all employees to join and denying employers the choice to hire outside of the union. A union culture that produces employees who are superior in training, productivity and safety, has members in high demand.

Nobody can impose democracy, you can only make conditions right for it to happen. I suggest most people are would-be control freaks, so in the end the system will always revert to authoritarianism. This is probably due to our own basic insecurities. The more things change, the more they stay the same ? Perhaps we are on the way back to the feudal system ? Unionism is usually reactionary, perhaps that is the problem ? What we probably need is a new cooperative mindset. The Germans don't seem to have our problems. When you move upmarket in a quality sense, the prices better justify the overheads. At present China is winning because of the way they exploit their people, if we try to play the same game it is just the race to the bottom and we must lose. My feeling is that quality issues must be permitted to become barriers to trade. In Australia several issues have arisen - steel fabrications which have failed in service, railway wheels which wear excessively, cladding for buildings which is non-fire retardant, use of asbestos in products and food contaminants . It all comes down to national and international standards for both product safety and workplace OHS&E.

frankdamp said:

If unions were democratic, employees would have a choice of which to join or not to join at all. In all cases I'm aware of, for one trade at one company, there's no choice.

Click to expand...

You should try to play golf at a private country club without a membership. Participants are required to join and pay dues or they get no golf. Should everyone be allowed to play golf at these facilities for free?

The purpose of "right-to-work" laws is not to put more money in working people's pockets, it's to weaken or destroy the unions that negotiate those good wages and benefits. Do your homework and get back to me. Every State that has imposed "right-to-work" has seen a drop in working peoples' incomes, not only in the Union sector, but in the non-union as well. The union standards support the non-union's and when the Unions go away, their standards of living suffer also.

"Right-to-Work" is part of the trend for capital to gather at the top after it's squeezed out of the middle. It has never benefited ANYONE who works for a living, only those that working people are employed by. And the idea that any organization should be forced by law to provide their services for free is antithetical to democracy. Show me one other law that dictates this. Right after you waltz into A Donald Trump-owned country club and demand to play for free.

Its maybe also worth commenting that a certain Mr Hitler et al was dead-set against unions,
and look where that went !!
Not to mention racial groups and minorities of all sorts.
Starting to sound familiar.... ?

Not to diverge from this rivetting and entertaining and informative line of discussion,
but it seems a bird with a certain look has been attracting considerable attention.
Something to do with the hairstyle, perhaps ??

I suggest that a lot of the prejudice against unions stems from managers' basic insecurities. I worked as a middle manager/scientist for many years in large organisations and on occasion had to front the unions in my workplace. I always treated them with respect as I recognise their right to exist and have their say. I've noticed that a lot of anti-union rhetoric on the web often comes from young guys who only know what they have been told. On occasion I have been annoyed at the weak representation I have received from my professional association. However much of my problem has been of my own making. Unions are almost invariably internally democratic and anyone can stand up and be counted. I did not do that, so I reaped what I had sown - apathy. I suggest that with Trump, unions will serve no useful purpose. They will probably be made illegal, if he runs true to form as a fascist.

acotrel said:

......... if he runs true to form as a fascist.

Click to expand...

??

acotrel said:

I suggest that a lot of the prejudice against unions stems from managers' basic insecurities. I worked as a middle manager/scientist for many years in large organisations and on occasion had to front the unions in my workplace. I always treated them with respect as I recognise their right to exist and have their say. I've noticed that a lot of anti-union rhetoric on the web often comes from young guys who only know what they have been told. On occasion I have been annoyed at the weak representation I have received from my professional association. However much of my problem has been of my own making. Unions are almost invariably internally democratic and anyone can stand up and be counted. I did not do that, so I reaped what I had sown - apathy. I suggest that with Trump, unions will serve no useful purpose. They will probably be made illegal, if he runs true to form as a fascist.

Click to expand...

I have also worked with many unions in my time, and I come from the 'enemy camp' by trying to introduce productivity and Lean etc and am someone who has personally never been a union member.

And I have to say that many union guys are simply pig ignorant individuals aiming to oppose anything and everything that is suggested by management 'come what may'.

However, many are reasonable, sensible people, who genuinely do have their members interests at heart and who want to 'do the right thing'.

In many different countries I have engaged with unions and, after properly explaining the overall approach and intent, have got full union backing.

So, on this occasion I have to say that I largely agree with Acotrel. Because I said nothing that the middle management could not have said IF they really understood and IF they really cared.

But I will add a 'Yin Yang' aspect by repeating what was said to me by a very clever, and rather aged gentleman (actually an Oxford Professor) some while ago: the problem is overly strong unions AND weak management.

But... I do think that unions need to change. They DID have a very valid place in society back when industry simply did not care and would willingly kill / maim / etc the workers.

In most countries this is no longer the case. Social expectations and labour laws now do what union used to do.

But unions do very much, IMHO, still have a valid role to play, but it is a different one, and they need to recognise that times have changed and their own reason for existence has thus also changed.

frankdamp said:

If unions were democratic, employees would have a choice of which to join or not to join at all. In all cases I'm aware of, for one trade at one company, there's no choice.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but democracy is secondary. The USA is a Republic and we now have a President-elect who got 2.6 million less votes than the other candidate. So why should Unions be "democratic" when the whole country is not?

Really you should read up on the purposes and results of allowing people to not pay dues and join Unions which negotiate the contract and conditions under which they work. The purpose is not to allow freedom of choice and the results are not more money in the hands of the individuals who do the work. The purpose is the demise of the Unions and the result is lower wages, less or no benefits and deteriorating safety and working conditions. Look anywhere where so-called "right-to-work" laws have been instituted and you'll see those results. Secondarily, the States which have passed those laws have seen a drop in overall wages, Union and non-union alike and the drop adds up to a lot more than what people formerly paid in dues.

We now are officially becoming an oligarchy, with billionaires ruling to their own advantage and if that makes for a disadvantage for any person or group that does not wield the power of big money, it doesn't matter. Why do you think Trump is so admiring of Putin?

Fast Eddie said:

acotrel said:

I suggest that a lot of the prejudice against unions stems from managers' basic insecurities. I worked as a middle manager/scientist for many years in large organisations and on occasion had to front the unions in my workplace. I always treated them with respect as I recognise their right to exist and have their say. I've noticed that a lot of anti-union rhetoric on the web often comes from young guys who only know what they have been told. On occasion I have been annoyed at the weak representation I have received from my professional association. However much of my problem has been of my own making. Unions are almost invariably internally democratic and anyone can stand up and be counted. I did not do that, so I reaped what I had sown - apathy. I suggest that with Trump, unions will serve no useful purpose. They will probably be made illegal, if he runs true to form as a fascist.

Click to expand...

I have also worked with many unions in my time, and I come from the 'enemy camp' by trying to introduce productivity and Lean etc and am someone who has personally never been a union member.

And I have to say that many union guys are simply pig ignorant individuals aiming to oppose anything and everything that is suggested by management 'come what may'.

However, many are reasonable, sensible people, who genuinely do have their members interests at heart and who want to 'do the right thing'.

In many different countries I have engaged with unions and, after properly explaining the overall approach and intent, have got full union backing.

So, on this occasion I have to say that I largely agree with Acotrel. Because I said nothing that the middle management could not have said IF they really understood and IF they really cared.

But I will add a 'Yin Yang' aspect by repeating what was said to me by a very clever, and rather aged gentleman (actually an Oxford Professor) some while ago: the problem is overly strong unions AND weak management.

But... I do think that unions need to change. They DID have a very valid place in society back when industry simply did not care and would willingly kill / maim / etc the workers.

In most countries this is no longer the case. Social expectations and labour laws now do what union used to do.

But unions do very much, IMHO, still have a valid role to play, but it is a different one, and they need to recognise that times have changed and their own reason for existence has thus also changed.

Click to expand...

While your individual experience with Unions may have been negative, not all Unions are interested in slowing productivity and opposing management at every turn. Unions have been their own worst enemies in the past, and any members or officials who think you should get paid more for doing less are living in the distant past. To be viable in a modern world, Unions must form partnerships with management for mutual advancement. labor and management is a dichotomy and anything that negatively affects one will do the same to the other. The demise of Unions and the rise of the billionaires that commenced in the 1980s has only benefited a very small percentage of the population, to the detriment of the rest.

Danno said:

While your individual experience with Unions may have been negative, not all Unions are interested in slowing productivity and opposing management at every turn. Unions have been their own worst enemies in the past, and any members or officials who think you should get paid more for doing less are living in the distant past. To be viable in a modern world, Unions must form partnerships with management for mutual advancement. labor and management is a dichotomy and anything that negatively affects one will do the same to the other. The demise of Unions and the rise of the billionaires that commenced in the 1980s has only benefited a very small percentage of the population, to the detriment of the rest.

Click to expand...

Forgive me Danno, I obviously was not as clear as I intended to be. My personal experience with unions (in my line of work at least) has been, on the whole, POSITVE, and a lot more positive than many in my line of work claim or believe. My point was that when things are explained to them openly and properly, they have almost always been supportive. It seems clear to me that their prior lack of understanding in such cases is down to weak management who either could not, or chose not to, explain things properly!

However, I have also witnessed many examples of unreasonable unions, which is my point abut the need to change. Unions need to protect their members (the workers) and the future generations of workers too, that is there very reason for existence after all.

To do this, I believe they need to take a more active role in modernisation and efficiency drives. Engage with senior management directly regarding the big issues facing the business and how they can work TOGETHER to resolve them. Some more progressive unions are already doing this of course, which I hope others will follow.

It is not the case for every union of course, but for many in Europe in the past, the chief strategy was to block change, no matter what it was. I have seen businesses relocate under the heading of cost, when the real reason has simply been to escape a smothering union.

But I have also seen businesses in the US and Europe implement efficiency drives (via "Lean Manufacturing methods") that have made hitherto non cost efficient plants become equal to, or even more cost effective, than their low cost country sister plants. This SAVED JOBS. And IMHO it is the way to save more jobs in the future and, dare I say it, revitalise the 'rust belt' economy.

Interestingly, if the West can do this, unions in low cost economies may also help the west out. In China and India I have seen a growing strength of unions, demanding wage rises and making the progress of change slower than before. In some Indian plants unions have effectively stopped all progress and made the management impotent. This is (slowly) eroding the advantage / attractiveness of moving manufacturing jobs there.

If western manufacturers do embrace the efficiencies they are capable of, and low cost countries do continue to erode their advantageous position, then the economic situation may well take another turn !