dagblog - Comments for "Obama will mean the end of capitalism!!!! (Whoops, too late ...)"

totally fair point, which is

Deadman — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:20:03 +0000

In reply to U.S. workers are compensated

totally fair point, which is why executive AND labor compensation ought to be tied closely with company profits. that's not to say equally tied tho of course. that's socialism ...

U.S. workers are compensated

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:26:51 +0000

In reply to wasn't scapegoating unions at

U.S. workers are compensated at significantly higher rates than their counterparts throughout the world.

Yes, but U.S. auto executives are compensated at far higher rates relative to their counterparts thoughout the world. Total executive compensation is of course a small part of total labor costs, but isn't there some hypocrisy in executives telling unions that wages need to be in line with other countries?

wasn't scapegoating unions at

Deadman — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:59:45 +0000

In reply to I'm feeling very protective

wasn't scapegoating unions at all - i have very mixed feelings about how much good they do. at one point, they were absolutely necessary, because labor protections and rights were almost non-existent ... and i still think they can be a positive if they are flexible. the airline industry actually was saved - at least temporarily (if oil had stayed at $140 a barrel, would have been a different story) - because their unions realized how precarious the situation was and agreed to alter their contracts.

but that change didn't come easy and not in time to save all the airlines. it's usually very tough for large, monolithic unions to adjust when broader conditions in their industries have changed. not surprising, they often fight hard not to give back anything they've earned in past battles.

Ideally, I'd like to see almost all labor unions have a fair amount of their compensation tied to the profits of their employer. Company does well, union does well, and vice versa. We're all tied in this thing together and both sides need to do a better job realizing that.

in the auto industry, it's just a fact: U.S. workers are compensated at significantly higher rates than their counterparts throughout the world. It's very tough for automakers to be profitable and competitive with that cost structure. No doubt, US automakers compounded the problem by choosing not to invest in small, more efficient cars, and doubling down on SUVs and trucks at just the wrong time, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Without change in their cost structure, any government bailout plan would provide nothing more than a stay of execution.

I'm feeling very protective

Orlando — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:17:58 +0000

In reply to Yes, many execs see unions as

I'm feeling very protective of unions after spending four days last week camped out in a union hall for GOTV.

And I'm totally NOT agreeing with you, but I don't think Deadman was scapegoating unions either. But I do think that as soon as companies start to get called on their bad business decisions, their default is to start whining about the unions. It's irritating.

Yes, many execs see unions as

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:14:37 +0000

In reply to Agreed that it's not an all

Yes, many execs see unions as bad. Yes, unions have been scapegoated. Yes, unions are very weak or nonexistent in some sectors, most notably Walmat, and that's a bad thing.

Seems like we're pretty close to agreement. Sigh...we need more obstinate trolls.

PS But I don't think that deadman was scapegoating unions, just noting that auto unions will need to adjust as well as auto companies if the industry is to rebound. If it even can rebound, about which I have my doubts.

Agreed that it's not an all

Orlando — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:38:27 +0000

In reply to When the unions were strong,

Agreed that it's not an all or nothing equation, but I'd bet that most management execs see it that way: Unions = bad. Yes unions are institutions but there is also a labor movement that rises and falls on the strength of all unions--trade, service workers, teachers. I'm not saying that unions don't need to change with the times, but I also believe that to a large extent unions, and the labor movement as a whole, have fallen victim to the "ACORN syndrome". The problems that no doubt existed were greatly exaggerated and public opinion was swayed. Add that to the current mega-employers who refuse to consider unions, like Walmart. And, you're right that auto workers are suffering because their companieshave been mismanaged, not because their unions have made unreasonable demands. But again, unions and workers have been used as the great scapegoat.

A brilliant plan. Besides,

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:05:02 +0000

In reply to You should call yourselves

A brilliant plan. Besides, dag is too big to fail. It would drag the whole internet down with it.

When the unions were strong,

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:03:39 +0000

In reply to I don't think that the Obama

When the unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Auto workers have already been screwed out of a lot of pay and benefits because unions have lost their standing. I say give the unions more power for collective bargaining, not less.

I don't buy simple equations like unions = good or unions = bad. Unions are social institutions and thus capable of both, just like companies, governments, religions, etc. Unions are certainly necessary to protect workers, and it's true that they strengthen the middle class and help alleviate the income gaps endemic to capitalism, but they can also be greedy, corrupt, racist, sexist, and xenophobic. In boom times, we need powerful unions to ensure that profits are fairly distributed. In bad times, intractable unions can make problems worse, not only by insisting on pay raises that companies can't afford but also by resisting restructuring that would make companies leaner.

Auto workers are suffering not because the auto unions have become weak and let auto executives steal all the profits. They're suffering because the profits have dried up. The companies don't have the finances to offer the union-negotiated pay raises of the old days. Well-run unions accept the reality and exhibit flexibility when needed to allow companies to restructure and downsize. Poorly run unions resist all change and contribute to failing companies' downfalls. In boom times, it's a different story. That's when unions should have maximum negotiating power.

You should call yourselves

Orlando — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:28:46 +0000

In reply to Normally, when you post or

You should call yourselves Dagbank. Then you could get some of that cash they're throwing around.

Normally, when you post or

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:21:59 +0000

In reply to The formatting on this site

Normally, when you post or comment, you should see editing buttons at the top of the textbox. But it's a little buggy, and sometimes they don't load right. When that happens, the spacing disappears from anything that you post. If it does happen, just refresh the page. The buttons should then appear, and everything should work. Unfortunately, our tech budget is approximately $0.