I've been taken back the story coming out Chicago about the McCormick Place losing business. Intitially, I didn't think to take a second look.
Link 1:ABC News Story that has some interesting analysis both in the video footage and supporting written analysis/links.
One at the recently departed Health Care Information show said the electrical services bill in Chicago reached $40,000. In Orlando, the same work costs $4,000.
Is it true that work rules require a union electrician to plug in a machine?
"McCormick Place has had a difficult chore in getting and keeping shows unless they get their costs down. It's as simple as that," said Daley.
"When we talked about shift changes....we've stepped up," said Dennis Gannon, Chicago Federation of Labor.
They may have to step up again.
On Wednesday, union leaders and other service providers will meet to talk about ways to keep Chicago competitive in the convention business.
The plastics industry has held its trade show in Chicago since 1971. Now they're leaving town. The trade group that puts on the convention determined moving the show to Orlando will save as much as $20 million.
Link 2: Chicago Tribune Article.
Though restaurant show attendance fell 24 percent this year, to 54,000 exhibitors and potential buyers, the event still pumped an estimated $86 million into the local economy, according to the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau. The show is committed to remain here in 2010 and 2011.
The reason I took a second look is that I got to thinking...if a convention brings that much postive impact to the community, what about attracting employers? What is the impact of employers who chose other, more competitive states? What is the impact of employers who have left the state or have expanded in NOT Illinois? If a flippin' trade show can pump $84M into the economy, imagine what 54,000 additional exhibitors jobs would be bring to the community and state, especially if they were not short term.
As I think about this I remember that Sentator Frerichs worked hard to elect Blago who took little time to excessively jack up business fees and eliminate competition on government contracts. Now sentator Frerichs wants to increase income taxes as the solution. Maybe a little more effort should be involved in taking our heads out of our (fill in the blank) and start applying some common sense.
On the bright side, California executed a similar approach to drive away business. At least us Illinoisians are not the best at being the worst. : )
Don't worry. I'm sure you'll be comforted by idea that we can address this problem and assurance that will not have to pay for it. That will be addressed by raising the taxes on investors and jacking up fees on the employers.
$5.66 per Pepsi.
$63 for the case, $50 for delivery, and $13 for gratuity because it would be insulting to the guy delivering it to not get paid as much as the item is worth.
Moëtry in the Potion
I actually agree with you on this one that we need to come up with creative solutions to this problem.
Unfortunately, you destroy any potential to actually accomplish this when you turn it into another one of your shrill union bashing sessions. The unions' job is to secure the best working environment and conditions for their members. The municipal authorities and management is to communicate and collaborate with the unions to reach the best long term agreement.
When they are treated antagonistically and deceitfully, doesn't it just dig everyone further into their battle positions? Simply approach the unions and say, "We have these anti-union states that we are competing with and we need to work together to come up with a plan so you can both have your democratic rights to organize and the best conditions possible, but not just for now, but for the long term." And then that has to be followed up with goodwill, not just shock tactics, "Give up everything or you'll have no jobs!!!"
As for your implication that the conditions elsewhere are what we should be emulating, I just ask what the free market has brought to us in the past--pre-Jungle, pre-Emancipation Proclaimation. Just because business can squeeze every last drop of blood out of a workforce in the short term doesn't mean that it is just or even productive in the long-term. Free labor is more profitable than paid labor, but it is less productive.
$13 is just 20% of the cost which is a standard automatic gratuity. If the center didn't overcharge for the cases, the gratuity would be much less.
I would say the center should demonstrate its own commitment to cutting costs BEFORE demanding the unions cut labor costs. Otherwise, it's in bad faith--do as I say for you, not as I do for me.
"I actually agree with you on this one that we need to come up with creative solutions to this problem."
I think we should go back and remove all the creativitiy that got us into this mess in the first place.
"Unfortunately, you destroy any potential to actually accomplish this when you turn it into another one of your shrill union bashing sessions."
You're giving a little blogger way too much credit. I have little power over the process. I simply point out the obvious that others want to creatively ignore.
Blago was very creative. Tell people that businesses are bad. Jack up fees. Jack up costs. Tax investors. Convince people that they are not on the hook for the people they elected. I'm tired of creative solutions to problems. It's time for common sense.
You say "standard automatic gratuity" as if there's nothing bizarrely unreasonable or extortionate about that concept.
Why do you have to pay someone a gratuity? Why can't they just do their job? Better yet, why can't YOU just do their job, and bring along a case of Pepsi that you pick up at County Market on your way out of town?
But if you don't have time, shouldn't $50 cover the cost of delivering a case of Pepsi? Should we break it down by the hour? I'd like to think I could deliver a lot of cases of Pepsi over the course of an 8-hour day (even with my three mandatory coffee breaks).
Moëtry in the Potion
How True! I travel to various manufacturing concerns in Illinois/Indiana and other midwestern areas. Nothing is more glaring than the high cost of doing business in Illinois. Folks we are getting absolutely hammered by Indiana especially. As isolated as the CU populace is with virtually minimal private sector manufacturing, it's a hard sell to folks who's income comes from tax dollars.
Rob: I'd agree with you. I'm not saying that it's logical. I'm just saying that it's the industry standard so we should attack that standard not the laborer who may be benefiting from that standard.
Your solution--that people just bring their own makes more sense from a cost perspective, and I would argue that's the real problem--us mortals wait until 24 packs are on sale for $4.99 and stock up. Those on others' dime raid the hotel mini-bar...
Sixteenth verse, same as the first: unions are bad this I know for the Limbaugh tells me so.
Congrats to the GEO!
"Rob: I'd agree with you. I'm not saying that it's logical. I'm just saying that it's the industry standard so we should attack that standard not the laborer who may be benefiting from that standard."
This logic removes any accountability from those who are lobbying to mandate industry standards (think prevailing wage). Let's discuss the standard but not discuss who is lobbying/funding chicago democrats who help "raise the standard."
Hint: Chicago Democrats don't support Chicago labor these days...
My logic makes a lot more sense than your logic which chooses to focus on a 20% gratutity rather than a 1000% profit bump on the cost of the case.
Union work rules in McCormick drove away the show. And, yes, it is true that you must hire a union electricion to plug in your machines. And you also have to slide them a cash "gratuity" to get it done in a timely manner.
Chicago is central to the country, has good transportion access, has a lot of nice entertainment options and restaurants downtown - it is a great place to host a national show. Too bad the unions killed the golden goose.
So can we assume the unions have what looks like a monopoly here? That would seem like a bad thing. Especially since the level of training to plug a cord into an outlet is normally reached in the second grade. Maybe we open the job up to the rest of the populace and see what they'd settle for in terms of wages. I'm guessing they could fill every job slot ten times over with good folks who make 15 bucks an hour. How much training does it take to deliver a case of soda? That slot could get filled for less that ten bucks an hour. Etc.
Of course that kind of thinking is not allowed in some circles. Unflinching support of union labor is part of the Chicago Way. Union membership is strictly limited to keep wages up and ensure the members all have jobs. One can only imagine the howls from the left if a business operated like this. So the folks who have choices will choose to leave Chicago and their money will go elsewhere. The band of theives ripping off the public will have to find "creative" ways to get more and more money from a dwindling pool of suckers. Sounds "unsustainable"
The unions' job is to secure the best working environment and conditions for their members.
Too bad they can't stay within those parameters. Instead, too often, they suck the life blood out of anything that hints at success. This was/is my objection with regard to GEO demands as well. "To hell with the financial crunch. Beg, borrow, gouge, or screw whomever you must, but give us more and give it to us now!"
I'm going to post anti-GEO messages in every thread.
"One at the recently departed Health Care Information show said the electrical services bill in Chicago reached $40,000. In Orlando, the same work, they say, would cost $4,000."
Not to pick nits, but FTFY. I would like to see proof of this alleged $36,000 discrepancy before condemning all unions on the basis of a rant by some unidentified disgruntled forum poster. Chicago has already proven the price of Pepsi to be on par with other venues through the released spreadsheet attached to the story linked above.
Machinery suppliers take very well trained, very highly paid, technicians with them to set up their stuff. But it would be stealing union jobs if these techs plugged a cord into an outlet. Well, now some union jobs have actually been lost - at least for the weeks to these 2 shows.
As for the GEO, there is a point where the university would logically decide they may as well just hire full-time people to do the work the TA's/GA's are doing. Something to consider...
The fact that the U of I agreed to give the GEO a 3% raise proves their claims about the depth of the financial crunch were exaggerated. The U of I must have at least $10 million that was budgeted for Global Campus now available. Also, we are operating without a Provost, saving at least $200K a year -- or more.
the proof...well, the shows are leaving. Apparently Chicago wasn't able to convince the show organizers.
I am sure that the machines shown in that video, machines that require "very high paid, very highly trained technicians" require more than a standard power cord plug at standard voltage. All I ask is that we stop over simplifying the work being done and get some facts into the debate. Until then, this is nothing more than B trying to spin this into one of his usual anti-union rants.
Anon wants to focus our attention solely on the price of the case of Pepsi, and not the gratuity. I think it's approporiate to look at both.
But if we do examine only the case cost -- why is it so much?
Is it $45 straight profit to McCormick Place, or does the gouged money go towards covering their costs -- i.e. exorbitant taxes, wages, and related costs inflated by a corrupt brotherhood of thugs?
Just curious.
Moëtry in the Potion
McCormick is in the business of selling space, and they have some of the best space in the country for a number of reasons. Their customers have said they are leaving because of cost. McCormick is laying off union workers. Competition is powerful. The union guy can say his members have made concessions and its not their fault as long as he wants - but he can't make the Plastics Council come to Chicago if they don't believe him.
I exhibited at an annual trade show in downtown Chicago (not at McCormick), but I (and my company) stopped partly because the event was unexpectedly very expensive. When I first arrived, I was surprised to find that I wasn't allowed to unload my exhibit from my car, wasn't allowed to wheel it into the exhibit hall, and wasn't allowed to set up the booth myself, including - yes - the plugging in of a simple power cord to a power strip. The "setup" fees were higher than the original exhibitor reservation fee, and higher than my hotel for the three nights I stayed. After two years, we stopped doing the trade show. I've not exhibited at shows in any other major cities, so I don't know if Orlando, etc. have the same work rules and associated expenses, but Chicago's were an eye opener to me.
That wouldn't by any chance be the Merchandise Mart?.... whose owner is now the head of the University's BOT.... I had a similar eye opening experience up there myself not long ago....
"That wouldn't by any chance be the Merchandise Mart?.... whose owner is now the head of the University's BOT.... I had a similar eye opening experience up there myself not long ago...."
No, it was the Hyatt one year, and the Hilton the next.
There is no limits on how low the unions will stoop and how silly things can really get.
I know local volutneers who have been approached by union agents wanting to confirm if the volunteers were being paid prevailing wage because they were volunteering on UofI property.
At what point do we need to get to before we realize how ridiculous things have gotten?
Go back up and watch the video to better understand the union's sentiments towards working together towards a reasonable solution. There is response: we already stepped up. The 'rational' person on this thread who says I'm unreasonable and claims we're focusing the wrong things suggests "I would say the center should demonstrate its own commitment to cutting costs BEFORE demanding the unions cut labor costs." Same ol' song and dance.
Sounds like that was one guy who was out of line - even his union leadership is disavowing his statement.
"Sounds like that was one guy who was out of line - even his union leadership is disavowing his statement."
The guy was president of his union chapter. Hopefully, an apology will be issued. Wanting volunteers to be paid prevailing wage is not a new conversation and that converstation has happened on the UofI campus. I even had to check, I thought I posted about it when I first received the report.
Hopefully, the Chicago union will "step up" and disavow the need to have union labor plug in machines and transport displays. To me, it's in the same class of silliness and nothing that is out of the ordinary for them.
If the union concedes that they do not need to plug in machines, I'm sure they call it a HUGE concession and ask for something in return. It all just seems crazy to me.
I love when "people" use "quotes" to make their "non-asinine" "points".
We are talking about a facility that increases cost by 1000% on a solid commodity. I fail to understand why people are having so much trouble understanding how that's more stunning than 20% gratuities or the idea that if you sign a union contract you can't bring in non-union employees for large chunks of the work.
If you are going to work collaboratively with workers, then compromises will be made. If you have an antagonistic relationship with workers, you shouldn't be surprised that their bargaining unit is likely to push to get every possible concession.
I fail to see what's so unreasonable about this.
The union premium vs. the compeition is 1000% when comparing Chicago to Florida.
One at the recently departed Health Care Information show said the electrical services bill in Chicago reached $40,000. In Orlando, the same work costs $4,000.
The premium on a case of sode vs. Las Vegas (FL was not provided) is approximately 5%.
I'm just saying...
Just throwing it out there...
It just might be...
Maybe the focus should be on the logical ways to cut cost and not the "logical" ways to cut costs.
Ah, a case of "sode'.
"So can we assume the unions have what looks like a monopoly here? That would seem like a bad thing."
They do on the Unit 4 School Board.
IP: I've not exhibited at shows in any other major cities, so I don't know if Orlando, etc. have the same work rules and associated expenses, but Chicago's were an eye opener to me.
I've exhibited in several Union States and Right to Work States and the rules are very different. Your post is accurate for Illinois, Washington DC, Minnesota, etc. Can't unload the car, can't set up the booth, can't plug in the cords, etc. You will however find that a large tip to the right person will allow you to do the work yourself. Doesn't help cost but does allow you to set up your own equipment and make sure it is the way you want it.
Dan: They do on the Unit 4 School Board.
I agree completely. In education, support, construction, etc. That monopoly increases cost with little benefit to those we are intending to serve, the kids.
"They do on the Unit 4 School Board."
I wonder what the work rules are going to be on the school construction that will result from the increased sales tax. But hey, we had to pay prevailing wage at any rate, right? You have be an idiot to enter in a non value added sweetheart deal that gives the local union exclusive rights to the project. Competition and choice is a good thing, except when it involves our tax dollars.
I agree completely. In education, support, construction, etc. That monopoly increases cost with little benefit to those we are intending to serve, the kids.
I don't see how unions create monopoly conditions in the actual delivery of education. In terms of salaries, benefits, conditions and respect, American teachers are treated far worse than in other large scale economy societies.
These countries usually have STRONG unions. The problem in education is not unions, it's that the unions are crappy. And not to paint with a broad brush--individual locals might be amazing, but the nationals and state levels sure suck.
Competition and choice is a good thing, except when it involves our tax dollars.
Sounds good, but in reality this usually translates into crappy work being done with the cheapest materials with the maximum amount of disruption to the learning environment.
It is wiser, safer, and cheaper in the long run to spend extra money at the point of construction. If you choose to save $50,000 on AC units those AC units typically need more repair and earlier replacement than the better, more expensive units. If you choose to save $100,000 on labor costs by going with non-union workers you usually end up with lots of mistakes that are expensive to fix, and buildings that need renovation much earlier in the cycle.
Cheaper is almost never better in construction. Spend the money now to do it right or you have nothing but headaches down the road.
The middle ground would be to let educators and community members into the process of selecting contracts. Currently in many districts we get expensive high quality or corrupt, expensive low quality, but either way, then tend to be installing or done at the worst possible times for instruction.
We had a team testing the fire alarm last week while classes were in session.
Recent article /USA TODAY on Union Membership.....over 50% union members are public employees.
Serious question. Was the county nursing home built by a union company or not?
Recent article /USA TODAY on Union Membership.....over 50% union members are public employees.
Probably. In the last thirty years private businesses have increasingly outsourced the traditional union jobs and the new jobs being created in the service and tech industries are typically not organized.
The argument is usually that all of this is necessary for the economy to continue to grow. Hasn't worked out so well, has it?
In the last thirty years private businesses have increasingly outsourced the traditional union jobs and the new jobs being created in the service and tech industries are typically not organized.
And why would private business outsource typical unioin jobs? Because unions put the squeeze on their profit margin? Because you can't get the highest quality, most creative, cooperative, dedicated workers by simply promoting based on seniority. Why would a person do anything above and beyond the minimal expected if they know under union rules they won't be promoted for their effort and they're going to net the same regardless of production?
And why would private business outsource typical unioin jobs? Because unions put the squeeze on their profit margin?
Uh ... yeah. Paying American workers a respectable wage that allows them to feed a family costs more than paying a respectable wage to a worker in Mexico. Since American businesses decided in about ... oh ... 1972 that they cared more about their bottom line than they did about the country they started the slow, true process of setting up factories and plants overseas and selling out the generations of Americans who made them what they are today. Most corporations have no allegiance to country or morals, only to profit.
Some would call them traitors. My guess is you would call them patriots.
Either way, the unions are hardly to blame.
Thank you Gore/Clnton for NAFTA
Quoting from the chief counsel of the NEA in a recent speech:
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.
And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.
This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.
You can watch it below or get more on the NEA website
Contrast that with Newt Gingrinch, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Secretary Arne Duncan and their views on education and you see a sharp contrast.
Thank you Gore/Clnton for NAFTA
I assume this is sarcasm. If that assumption is correct, then cosign.
What ever you do , and what ever you make , Thank the unions!! the people that brought you the 40 hour week!!!!
Yes, Al Sharpton is an icon and a visionary. I'm glad to see that the right-wing doesn't see him as some sort of clout led manipulator.
Paying American workers a respectable wage that allows them to feed a family costs more than paying a respectable wage to a worker in Mexico.
If you wanted to have some repair done on your car or house, and had two proposals both from individuals or cmpanies you felt could complete the task to your satisfaction--one for $1000 and one for $1500--which one would you choose ? Why would you expect a corporation to behave differently ?
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Why would you expect a corporation to behave differently ?
Let me give you a different scenario. Let's say that you've been going to a local hardware store for the last thirty years. You know the owner and his family. Maybe his kids played with your kids in local sports, you attend the same church, or maybe you are in the same bowling league. Every time you need a gallon of paint or a box of nails you go to this hardware store, which is slightly expensive, but you realize that your money is going to more than paint, it is going to feed this man's family, to help him buy his kid's clothes, pay his taxes, etc.
Then somewhat out of nowhere a large, "big box" hardware store opens in town. Prices are dirt cheap. A gallon of paint is about 2/3rds the price of that same gallon at your friend's hardware store. Nails are even cheaper. You don't know the people who own the store (they live several states away), and you've heard that the teenagers they employ to run the store make only slightly above minimum wage. You know that most of the money you spend there will not stay in the community.
But ... it's cheaper. What do you do?
Sometimes it is about more than profits, you know? There is a difference between making more money and making decisions that are all about making more money. A lot of the corporations that shipped manufacturing overseas were not at the end of their rope. They were simply seeking more profits and higher returns for investors.
"Paying American workers a respectable wage that allows them to feed a family costs more than paying a respectable wage to a worker in Mexico."
You can either be a nationalist (like Hitler) or a racialist (like Hitler), and maybe you choose both. But the argument that labor protectionism is good for the worker doesn't hold up unless you invite all the workers, and you are not inviting all the workers.
Moëtry in the Potion
To November 22nd, 2009 at 09:36 AM, A is for Anonymou
Your parable about the local hardware store tells us why an indivual under specific circumstances, might want to patronize a local, rather than a big box store, but provides no insight into the behavior of corporations in general.
There is a difference between making more money and making decisions that are all about making more money
After three readings, this sentence earned no relevance to the discussion.
A lot of the corporations that shipped manufacturing overseas were not at the end of their rope. They were simply seeking more profits and higher returns for investors.
Shareholders (including pension funds) would get quite bent out of shape, if a corporation waited until the end of its rope before moving operations overseas
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Well, that's certainly the end of that. Been a while since I've been compared to Hitler though.
I'm glad that this rush to ship manufacturing overseas has worked out so well for the American worker. You guys are no doubt exactly right. This was the best thing for the country (and the world!) and nothing else could have been done.
The invisible hand has spoken! Have a great day.
It is interesting that the Japanese Auto industry also shipped jobs overseas -- to the United States. While GM and Ford commenced building cars in Mexico their rivals were building cars in Illinois, Indiana and Tennessee with American union labor.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
To get back to the topic of this thread, I submit the folllowing. Many of our company clients are members of a world organization which made the decision years ago, based upon high costs, not to hold a conference in Chicago. They have chosen Denver, Dallas, San Diago, Houston, LA, Salt Lake City, Houston, Pittsburg, New Orleans & San Antonio. Unlike Chicago, these cities allow displays which can be brought in by one person who rented the space & setup within an hour at no cost. Chicago's decision to disallow all non-union handling of displays was done years ago. They continue to see the negative impacts of losing conference/show business as they should. Another much overlooked cost of this decision by the city was the almost complete elimination of small business verdors at the Chicago events they do get. A very antibusiness attitude for a City to take especially when small businesses are the major employers in Illinois and this country.
"Sometimes it is about more than profits, you know? There is a difference between making more money and making decisions that are all about making more money. A lot of the corporations that shipped manufacturing overseas were not at the end of their rope. They were simply seeking more profits and higher returns for investors. "
Shorter "A is for Anonymous:"
Like I said last week, when it comes to your personal behavior, you're just as self-interested and capitalistic as those whom routinely accuse of being immoral. (NOTE: I'm not saying you're immoral. I'm saying your behavior is no different than those you accuse of being immoral.)
It's also interesting that you think it's exceptionally noble to pay a premium for paint and nails because your kids play sports with the hardware store owner's kids, but yet it's also exceptionally noble to use the state to force your local doctor to discount the treatment of the sports injuries of those same kids.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, right?
Keith,
Can you point me to Toyota's nearest union plant? Honda? Nissan?
The UAW has never successfully organized an assembly plant solely owned by a foreign auto manufacturer in the United States. The Bloomington, IL plant is UAW due to one of its original owners, Chrysler. These non-union facilities however employ workers at UAW competitive wages and benefits which may be the major factor in the UAW's failure to organize.
The reality of the world economy we live in today is that certain jobs can be done just fine in cheaper labor nations. If American companies didn't ship their jobs oversees, one of their Japanese or European competitors would. Then, the only way to keep these companies from getting run out of business would be big tariffs on imports. Again, expense for a big unorganized group (consumers) vs big income for a small organized group (union workers).
Like I said last week, when it comes to your personal behavior, you're just as self-interested and capitalistic as those whom routinely accuse of being immoral. (NOTE: I'm not saying you're immoral. I'm saying your behavior is no different than those you accuse of being immoral.)
The premise of your entire personal attack (do you have any other kind anymore?) is that utilizing a government program that is designed for you is immoral. Why?
... but yet it's also exceptionally noble to use the state to force your local doctor to discount the treatment of the sports injuries of those same kids.
Who's doing what?
But kudos on finding the so-called violation of my moral code. Since I don't view the use of a government program designed for me to be immoral, a more interesting question might be (as I asked last week) why you think it is immoral for a taxpaying citizen of the state to use a program, but it is perfectly moral for a corporation to screw over its workers in pursuit of maximum profit (as opposed to a modest profit)? Or why is it acceptable for a business to milk the city for millions in tax breaks but unacceptable for citizens to use programs designed to help them pay for health care?
The reality of the world economy we live in today is that...
I thought America was the most important country in the world and everyone else followed our lead. Or is that only with the UN?
So go the unions, so go the country. You don't have to believe it just because it is true.
Forget any economic theory that says free trade is good. I am sure that worldwide protectionism would be great for the economies of all countries.
Free trade is allowed giant multinational non government corporations to exist. It has also allow some smaller businesses and countries to compete internationally. Protectionism is an economic wall around a country built and monitoried by its government leading to economic disaster for those enclosed. There is nothing 'great' about protectionism, rsw. Economic protectionism is what caused the USSR to perish.
What the hell does protectionism mean, anyway?
The American economy has been based, in large part, on the short-term gains for the few to the long-term detriment of the many. These corporations may make a quick profit by outsourcing steel production to Mexico, but the long-term impact on their own country, and on the global economy is not good.
You can't have a country that relies on consumer spending to fuel growth and also have a country that ships good paying jobs overseas. That is a recipe for disaster, and that disaster is upon us. Unions, for all their faults, are in the business of making sure skilled workers are paid a decent wage. And that, more than anything, is essential for the success of an economy.
It is not about money made in the stock market, it is about money that puts food on people's tables. Call that protectionism, or call me Stalin, but that is simple economic reality. The economy, believe it or not, exists for the people. The people do not exist for the economy.
Think about it. Have a good night.
A For A complaining about IP: The premise of your entire personal attack (do you have any other kind anymore?) is that utilizing a government program that is designed for you is immoral. Why?
No personal attack here. Just a thought from IP to encourage A For A to reassess her/his assumptions.
I thought America was the most important country in the world and everyone else followed our lead.
Wrong !!!
So go the unions, so go the country. You don't have to believe it just because it is true.
Are you trying to be as unconvincing as Todja So and B is for Business typically are? Assertion does not equal truth.
The American economy has been based, in large part, on the short-term gains for the few to the long-term detriment of the many.
Please justify this assertion, and inform of us places where you consider this not to be the case
You can't have a country that relies on consumer spending to fuel growth ....
Growth fueled primarily by internal consumer spending leads to speculation and recessions.
The economy, believe it or not, exists for the people. The people do not exist for the economy.
Economies do not think about people.
"The premise of your entire personal attack (do you have any other kind anymore?) is that utilizing a government program that is designed for you is immoral. Why?"
I've never said anything close to that. What I have noticed is that, according to your standards, when a corporation does whatever is in its self interest, you think that's immoral, but when you do what is in your own personal self interest, you have no such qualms.
I am merely pointing out that you are violating the standards that you routinely try to apply to everyone else, especially to employers.
I, for one, don't think it is immoral for someone to act in their own self interest. In fact, I think people doing just that generally produces hugely net positive results for society as a whole, and for people individually. So it's not a personal attack at all, but rather a congratulations that you're such a devoted capitalist after all. One would never have guessed that simply by reading your rhetoric, but I'm glad you really don't believe what you write.
A company does not have a self. I don't understand why people seem to insist that companies are human beings and enjoy such rights.
I also don't see how "your child's health"=self interest. That seems like a weird definition.
And the last line is particularly rich. I don't believe that you really believe half of what you write anyway. Unfettered capitalism is a fun debate point, but no sane person actually believes that we should have an unrestricted market with the atrocities that would accompany that...
"I also don't see how "your child's health"=self interest. That seems like a weird definition."
Applying for insurance subsidized by your neighbors and service providers is absolutely the definition of self interest. You are consciously doing something to benefit yourself at the expense of others. How is that not self interest?
And how is that substantively different than a CEO outsourcing jobs to increase his profit? Both are merely taking advantage of a regulatory environment that benefits some at the expense of others.
Protectionism is when the gov't picks the winners and losers within the country by keeping out competition. The US can "protect" any industry it wants - and all the buyers of that product or service will pay.
Outsourcing steel to Mexico - do you ever wonder if Toyota and Honda would be outsourcing auto production to the US if they couldn't get reasonably-priced steel? The US could protect steel jobs and kill any chance for the US to build tractors and cars.
And when that decent wage gets too much higher than the world market, that decent wage will go away because so will the job. See McCormick place - our original example.
Applying for insurance subsidized by your neighbors and service providers is absolutely the definition of self interest. You are consciously doing something to benefit yourself at the expense of others. How is that not self interest?
And how is that substantively different than a CEO outsourcing jobs to increase his profit? Both are merely taking advantage of a regulatory environment that benefits some at the expense of others.
This sounds like the crap where people say, "If you believe in Liberatarianism, why did you call the police when I punched you in the face?"
Caring for your children is not analogous to increasing the profit line.
"Caring for your children is not analogous to increasing the profit line."
Why is it so difficult understand the difference between caring for one's children and accepting subsidies provided by one's neighbor's and medical providers to do so?
"A is for Anonymous" is perfectly capable of "caring for his children" without the subsidies, and in fact has said so on here. He chooses to use the subsidized program to maximize the financial benefits for his family, i.e., he's self-interested.
Again, I don't think there's anything wrong or improper or immoral with being self-interested, but "A is for Anonymous" does - or at least does for others.
I had not seen a quote where he said that he was merely part of the program to save money, if that's the case, then I was making nearly as poor of an analogy as you are.
Even if it's saving money at the expense of others, given the current condition of the governing system, you are mistaken to think that spending-->taxation. The only difference if he refused to spend our money on his kids' health would be that it would be spent on some patronage or clouted initiative instead.
Another point on unions - if they really want their workers to get a decent wage, why aren't they pushing hard to secure the border? The only explanation I can come up with is they are afraid of hurting the Democratic party.
"I had not seen a quote where he said that he was merely part of the program to save money, if that's the case, then I was making nearly as poor of an analogy as you are."
He said it last week. Paraphrasing: "I'm very happy with my $80-per-week government-provided health insurance because the money we save allows my wife not to work."
Again, a noble sentiment, and I will not criticize anyone for acting in the own self-interest. But I will point out when someone acting in the own self interest makes it a habit to criticize others as immoral when they do the same.
Another point on unions - if they really want their workers to get a decent wage, why aren't they pushing hard to secure the border? The only explanation I can come up with is they are afraid of hurting the Democratic party.
I think that unions learned from the period in which companies exploited racism's divisions to push down wages. It was a pretty bad period (not just because of wages, but even more so due to the racism).
The problem is not people crossing the border. The problem is a lack of legal protection for workers that incites companies to hire less skilled workers because they can abuse them due to their undocumented status.
"A is for Anonymous" is perfectly capable of "caring for his children" without the subsidies, and in fact has said so on here.
I've never said any such thing because it isn't true. There are things about our personal family situation that are not your business and your repeated attempts to criticize the choices our family makes are not only insulting but they are over the line.
I'm glad that you are so content with your employer-based coverage. The situation with your child is not my business, and I have never attempted to criticize the way you take care of your family. Why you think it is in any way appropriate to do that to one of your commenters is beyond me.
Except for the fact that you have completely derailed a decent conversation about unions into a personal criticism of one of your commenters. Congratulations! This conversation is dead. Mission accomplished.
"I've never said any such thing because it isn't true. There are things about our personal family situation that are not your business and your repeated attempts to criticize the choices our family makes are not only insulting but they are over the line."
Sure you did - right here. A small quote from that thread, which you later tried to go back and delete:
You said it was "a beautiful thing" that the government takes money from others and provides it to you so you can make the lifestyle choices you make.
"Except for the fact that you have completely derailed a decent conversation about unions into a personal criticism of one of your commenters."
Again, I'm not criticizing you for doing what is in your own self interest. Why are you so hypersensitive about it? I think it's fine and dandy, and just wish you felt the same about others who act in their own self interest.
A is for Anonymous ended his last post with "Mission accomplished."
Wasn't "Mission accomplished" for a time the mantra for one of A is for Anonymous' favorite recent presidents?
A is for Anonymous' statements in this thread seem as unaccomplished as the mission of that recent president.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Yes, that's a great point, that quote from A4A about how he feels it is in the society's best interest that his family is supported medically is really a testament to his severe self-interest because you say it is.
Wow, project much?
So just because he says that society is better off because the government is taking money from others and giving it to him, that means he's not self-interested? Boggle.
I'm sure that the CEO of Company X thinks society is better off because they offshored jobs, too. Just because they say so, does that mean they're not self-interested?
Sure you did - right here. A small quote from that thread, which you later tried to go back and delete:
Wow. You are so unbelievably out of line right now. I tried to go back and delete that comment about two minutes after I posted it. Did you ever think there might be a reason I wanted it deleted? Maybe I misspoke. Or maybe I decided the information was too personal to be broadcast to the world. Isn't it my choice to delete comments I don't want posted on this blog? Or are you allowed to negate that choice because you are the moderator?
In other words, how is it even remotely appropriate for you to paste a line that somebody edited off a comment in the first place?
You need to back up and think about what you are doing here in regards to me as a commenter. You have now hijacked more than one thread to attack me personally. Your comments are increasingly hostile and abusive in nature. You have no idea what the situation is with my family. It is possible that my wife can't work right now. Or maybe one of our children has special needs that require her to stay home. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and all of the information you are basing your misguided opinions on was taken from a comment that I deleted.
Please stop talking about my personal business. It is inappropriate and very weird. Thank you.
It's not a personal attack to use your own gloating to point out that you're self interested. In my view, self interest is a good thing. Why do you think it's an insult?
If you don't like my talking about things you write on here, don't post them. I can't help it if you try to go back and delete things after you've been called on them.
And it is your behavior on here that has grown increasingly abusive, to the point where you've used at least three different screen names in repeated efforts to walk away from the ill will and negative attention you generate.
It is you who routinely question the morality of others - something that I've not done to you.
It is you who routinely have questioned my honesty when I discuss my own insurance situation - something I've not done to you.
It is you who routinely attack broad categories of people with the vilest insults you can imagine - something I've not done to you.
All I have done is use your own words to point out your own self interested behavior. You do not deny the words, you do not deny the self interest, but rather are trying to falsely pretend that my pointing it out is either inappropriate or insulting. It is neither, and certainly more appropriate and less insulting than your efforts to question the morality of others on here, including me.
I'm tired of you sanctimoniously declaring that others are immoral for acting exactly as you do. I'm tired of your pretending you're being insulted or dishonored by my pointing that out.
Wow, what a nasty display. So much from being immune from moderator hubris.
If A is for Anonymous tried todelete a posting before it generated any response or was quoted, then his deleted post shoud not have been quoted.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
And it is your behavior on here that has grown increasingly abusive, to the point where you've used at least three different screen names in repeated efforts to walk away from the ill will and negative attention you generate.
I was fairly certain that's what was going on. Soldja Toe and A4A's dogged styles of attack were just too consistently similiar to have likely come from different individuals. I also rather doubt his attempt to delete his bragging about using "the system," so his wife could stay home, was prior to it being spotlighted as hypocritical to his standard rants. He was quite proud of his sponging.
If you don't like my talking about things you write on here, don't post them. I can't help it if you try to go back and delete things after you've been called on them.
I wasn't called on anything before I deleted that post. Otherwise the editing would have pre-posted the comment after your comment. The fact that the "edit" is before anyone quotes it means that it was deleted before anyone had commented on the post.
As I said earlier, it was edited about two minutes after I posted it because I realized that it was worded poorly, gave the wrong impression, and was more personal information than I wanted broadcast to the world.
As I said earlier, I would like you to stop discussing personal information about my family that I have deleted from your blog. It is really inappropriate and weird.
I don't understand much of the rest of your post, but this is only my second screen name on this blog. You don't have to believe that, but it is true.
I think you should keep in mind that you don't really know as much as you think you do about me or the other commenters on here. You might have some IP addresses and deleted comments to dig through at 9:30 at night, but that hardly tells the whole picture.
Please stop talking about my personal family business on your blog. It is inappropriate and weird. Please stop.
And am I the only one who thinks it creepy that the owner of the blog is choosing to out anonymous posters to win petty conflicts on the blog?
It's especially ironic when the owner spent a great deal of time several years ago playing with the anonymous nature of the blog to stoke speculation about his own identity.
It might not be fair to paint all Republicans with the broad brush that A4A sometimes does, but individual's actions certain do speak for themselves.
"Wow, what a nasty display. So much from being immune from moderator hubris."
I never claimed to be immune from anything, let alone hubris. I am just as human as anyone else, but I will tolerate an awful lot on here before reacting. I will no longer tolerate the sanctimonious judgemental condescending nature of A is for Anonymous' comments without pointing out his own hypocrisy. I'm tired of being told I'm selfish, immoral, greedy, and unpatriotic, and I'm tired of him doing it to others as well.
"If A is for Anonymous tried todelete a posting before it generated any response or was quoted, then his deleted post shoud not have been quoted."
I quoted it before it was deleted, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to quote it at all.
"I wasn't called on anything before I deleted that post. Otherwise the editing would have pre-posted the comment after your comment. The fact that the "edit" is before anyone quotes it means that it was deleted before anyone had commented on the post."
Incorrect. I quoted it before it was deleted. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to quote it, as I never would have seen it.
"Please stop talking about my personal family business on your blog. It is inappropriate and weird. Please stop."
Please stop poisoning discussions on here with your self-righteous and all-knowing judgements of the morality of others. Stop calling people traitors for being just as self-interested as you.
I am done with this discussion, as long as you can refrain from your usual schtick. But when you lapse into your usual debate technique of labeling anyone who disagrees with you as selfish, immoral, racist or treasonous, then I will again call you on your hypocrisy.
"And am I the only one who thinks it creepy that the owner of the blog is choosing to out anonymous posters to win petty conflicts on the blog?
It's especially ironic when the owner spent a great deal of time several years ago playing with the anonymous nature of the blog to stoke speculation about his own identity."
I haven't outed anybody. A is for Anonymous is still pseudonymous, as far as anyone who reads IP.com is concerned.
And if I'm too creepy for trying to rein in the most abusive and insulting commenter currently participating on IP.com, then feel free to start your own blog. It's free and easy and I'd be happy to subscribe.
I quoted it before it was deleted, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to quote it at all.
Yeah, that's not what he said. He said that if I had tried to delete it before it generated a response then you shouldn't have quoted it. Look at the time stamp. I deleted it at 8:21 and you posted your comment shortly thereafter. Since I had walked away from the thread I didn't even realize you had posted the quote that I deleted until this thread. Obviously I didn't want a response as I didn't want that information on your blog. That you posted it and did not edit it after you saw that I deleted the information is unethical, imo. That you are continuing to post it in other threads, and refusing to edit it out of this thread even after I have asked you to is very weird, and inappropriate.
Please stop poisoning discussions on here with your self-righteous and all-knowing judgements of the morality of others. Stop calling people traitors for being just as self-interested as you.
I call your bluff. You are absolutely, and completely wrong when you say this stuff about me. Your little link as "evidence" is a perfect example. Nobody on the blog was called anything, much less a traitor. Yet you are making it sound like I directed that insult at an individual commenter.
So ... prove it. If you are going to continue to throw nasty insults at me and then justify your rude behavior by claiming I do worse, then I think it is time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Here is specifically what you are claiming about me:
[I] label anyone who disagrees with [me] as selfish, immoral, racist or treasonous.
You also called me a hypocrite because of those things, and claimed I am verbally abusive to other commenters.
Quotes? Immoral, please. Racist, please. Treasonous, please. Abusive, please.
Remember, I am only a hypocrite if I am those things and I have directed those accusations at particular individuals on this blog, as you have directed them personally at me. Not at Democrats. Not at faceless corporations. At me, personally.
And, for the record, if you refuse to prove these accusations with quotes in context then I will assume you have realized that you are wrong.
The rest of your last comment is honestly so over-the-line I can't respond to it.
I am a long time reader but a infrequent commenter to this site. I don't really understand why the Illinipundit is so angry at A is For Anonymous. In my opinion this conversation has really soured my opinion of the Illinipundit, and I consider myself to be a proud Republican! You shouldn't have published the stuff that A is for Anonymous deleted. And I actually think you should probably apologize because your words are very mean spirited. Even if someone is mean to you that doesn't give you a good reason to be mean to them. It seems to me that this blog is not a very safe place for a person to comment if the moderator is going to be this rude. I don't blame A is for Anonymous for not commenting any more. I would never comment again if I had been treated this way.
I also don't understand why my post is not being published. Is Illinipundit now a place that censors all of the comments? What has happened to this site?
I don't understand why trolls drive all the debate here.
Can we please get back to what's important? For God sakes, it's Thanksgiving!
On thanksgiving, we have a tradition at my house decorating the xmas tree. Yayyyyy!
Does anyone know a union electrician who works on Black Friday? I'm hoping to get my tree plugged in as soon as possible.
Oh, don't worry. I asked for specifics that justify IP's personal attacks. My guess is that the conversation is over.
I'm counting about 8 posts where IP has explained his rationale. Even when you make it about you, he makes it about your position. It's all pretty clear to me. If you truly want to make the discussion less about you, why don't email IP directly? No, I'm not going to respond to more comments about you. I have no idea who you are, what you do, or your family situation other than what you posted yourself. Even though I wouldn't if I could, it's not like I can "out" you by determining that you have a wife who is taking care of the kids.
A4A, while I could give a rat's ass about you personally, can you believe that $10's and even $100's of millions of economic benefit are leaving Chicago because of the excessive cost of doing business there? That's from the the McCormick place losing a couple events. If that's a big deal, can you imagine what the impact is of employers not coming to our state? How much does a Honda or Caterpillar plant inject into someone else's (not our) community?
How do you propose the governement solves the problem of businesses choosing other states while people here are looking for work? More taxes? Higher standards? Better work rules? The Mayor of Chicago is making a big deal over +/- $100M. Seems like chump change to me after looking at the size of budget deficits in Chicago and the State.
"Oh, don't worry. I asked for specifics that justify IP's personal attacks. My guess is that the conversation is over."
The conversation is over, at least on here. I've given you specifics repeatedly, and you continue to pretend as if this is a personal attack.
I'm done discussing it, so if you want to continue, email me. Further discussion on here will be unpublished. We have destroyed enough threads.
In the future, if I think you've published something insulting or provocative, I'm just going to unpublish it, and you can try to defend its value over email.
Thanks to everyone, and my apologies, for having to have this discussion yet again on here. It won't happen again.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
One last point, which you can choose to delete or not. I did not make this thread about me. I have spent most of this thread trying to not make it about me.
I am not innocent in the conversation, but I am not guilty of trying to hijack the thread. Again, just look at the thread. Look at the facts. Then make up your own mind.
Personally, I think what would stop companies from running from Chicago would be a reinforcement of international labor laws that would ensure that employers can't just move to another place where employer abuse is allowed in the name of "free market".
As I've said before, I would frankly be shocked if there's a single person who really believes in a completely unfettered market.
"One last point, which you can choose to delete or not. I did not make this thread about me. I have spent most of this thread trying to not make it about me.
I am not innocent in the conversation, but I am not guilty of trying to hijack the thread. Again, just look at the thread. Look at the facts. Then make up your own mind."
6 references to yourself. 0 references to the post topic. Enough already. Please.
5 references to yourself. 0 references to the post topic. Enough already. Please.
Another post about A4A, and nothing remotely relevant to the post topic or the responses.
"Personally, I think what would stop companies from running from Chicago would be a reinforcement of international labor laws that would ensure that employers can't just move to another place where employer abuse is allowed in the name of "free market"."
You mean those places that tolerate slave labor, like Las Vegas and Florida?
5 references to yourself. 0 references to the post topic. Enough already. Please.
I changed it to 6. I count 4 "I"s and 2 "me"s. Sorry for the error.
You mean those places that tolerate slave labor, like Las Vegas and Florida?
I mean that labor conditions with semi-compentent management and strong worker organization reach an equalibrium where productivity is maximized and crime and other negatives are minimized.
Why wouldn't you want very competent management in your scenario? Are simply assuming the best mangement you could ever achieve is semi-competent? That's funny.
Only hindsight reveals if management was competent or not (example: Ron Zook). And sometimes unpredictable ramifications of a changing environment makes competent management appear hapless or brilliant through no fault of its own. Those who hire management do so with expected performance criteria or standards which they convey to newly hired management. If those criteria are ill-founded, management may end up appearing incompetent.
Hence, inherently management is usually semi-competent. This IS funny (in the sense of being ironic)
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Why wouldn't you want very competent management in your scenario? Are simply assuming the best management you could ever achieve is semi-competent? That's funny. If you would read the sentence, you would see that it's a minimum threshold, not an upper limit. As you seem to harp on constantly, there's a higher demand on a democratic nature of the union representation. In the status quo, that's often not present. Don't be a jerk. You can see why A4A is so abrasive--you seem to be incapable of having a logical discussion.
The further irony of your statement is that it is straight projection--you constantly assume much worse in your scenarios. You assume that ALL management is golden motived, and any worker power is negative. If people like you were running the country, we'd have highly profitable child prostitution and organ harvesting and no incentive to work for anyone not at the highest echelons.
Here's a thread that is talking about the outragious work rules that are driving business out of our state while Chicago and Springfield are on the brink of financial crisis. An anon poster references international labor standards and worker abuse. Going forward, feel free to assume that this logic will bring out the best in me. Now you're telling me what I assume. Nice. Nothing new. Just please don't start debating those assumptions that you made on my behalf. Let's just we've been down that road before. While a child prostitution ring may very well be profitible, I find it ironic that you accuse me of taking people for granted. I would never propose work rules that require someone to pay a premium to plug in their machine and charge them 1000% premium. If I ever did something like that, then I would certainly deserve the scumbag label.
The "best in you" seems to have trouble reading sentences. Then when you get called on it, you say that we are "assuming". I am assuming that words have meanings.
Then you in your infinite grace decide to label organized workers as "scumbags". What is it that you "do" for a living again? (Yay for overuse of quotes!)
If it makes you feel any better, I referred to the wall street guys who paid themselves excessive bonuses (on the taxpayers' dime) scumbags. Organized or not organized, a scumbag is a scumbag.
The difference is that one group of your "scumbags" were handed directly nearly a trillion dollars by you pro-business types. The other group has had no such socialism for the rich.
"you pro-business types"
This pro-business blogger doesn't believe in taxpayer bailouts. I'm not the kind who looks the other way when it's politically convenient.
Some people earn their living ripping people off. Others don't. When people are ripping you off, it's great to have a choice where YOU get to determine whether or not you will continue to be ripped off. Poor taxpayers usually don't have a choice. Thankfully for them, the operators of the conventions were able to move their conventions.
Competition and choice is a good thing. Funny how competition and choice all of a sudden becomes hip and cool to liberals when they are trying to pass health care reform.
When it's politically convenient, it only makes sense to eliminate choice and competition. Oh yeah, it's not wrong if it falls under "work rules" or "industry standards". Oh...it's not wrong if you point to some other government entity running deficits and say "look, they're doing it!"
The best pro-union arguments in this thread are that I'm not being very sensitive and by me being antagonistic, I'm only going to upset them, and heaven forbid we don't want to do that.
Let's not overlook the argument that we should take a step back and think about what the world would be like if the markets were completely free....remember the Jungle.
1000% union premium while there is still choice.
Imagine how bad you get ripped off when you eliminate choice.
I suppose common sense isn't good enough, so we're probably going to have to wait for someone to make a concession before the union "steps up".
The Jungle IS the counterargument. Concessions from the union won't improve things on their own. If the companies believe that people will pay 500% premium during a convention, they will merely cut the union premium to 200% and pocket the rest.
So the question becomes not, "What concessions will the company make to the union?" but "What concessions will the company make to the consumer?"
Why is it when concessions are to be made, only the relatively poor worker has to make concessions?
The correct strategy would be to bring in the workers--who know far more about the day-to-day nuts and bolts of running a convention center--to the table and determine what will retain customers at the highest income. Then come to a mutual, transparent agreement of how much money will go to compensation and how much will go to profits.
If it was up to me, I'd invite the consumers to the table too and make the whole financial negotiation public.
This is also how I'd run all union negotiations for public services. It's the people's money, so we should all have access to an itemized accounting of the schools, police etc.
"The correct strategy would be to bring in the workers--who know far more about the day-to-day nuts and bolts of running a convention center--to the table and determine what will retain customers at the highest income. Then come to a mutual, transparent agreement of how much money will go to compensation and how much will go to profits."
How about we table this fantastic idea and look at Las Vegas and Florida. If they are taking business away from the McCormick place, why don't we do better in every aspect and give the customers more bang for the buck. If we are able to win back the business that we lost, we could probably even win additional business that didn't exist before.
You want to assume the workers know what customers want. How about we start with customers and ask them what they want instead?
How about we table this fantastic idea and look at Las Vegas and Florida. If they are taking business away from the McCormick place, why don't we do better in every aspect and give the customers more bang for the buck.
Let's see, Florida has Disneyland with sunshine and Lost Wages has the Strip. We could line Lake Shore Drive with casinos and some good may come from global warming after all...
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"Let's see, Florida has Disneyland with sunshine and Lost Wages has the Strip. We could line Lake Shore Drive with casinos and some good may come from global warming after all..."
Or we can be sensible and identify the costs that makes Chicago unattractive and address them, in order of priority as determined by the customer. If the union doesn't want to "step up", then (for the sake of the Chicago economy), at least allow those able and willing to earn an honest days wage.
It's a beautiful thing when the customer has a choice.
Hmm: On November 30th, 2009 at 06:33 AM, you posted:
You want to assume the workers know what customers want. How about we start with customers and ask them what they want instead?
On November 29th, 2009 at 09:55 AM, I posted:
If it was up to me, I'd invite the consumers to the table too and make the whole financial negotiation public.
This is also how I'd run all union negotiations for public services. It's the people's money, so we should all have access to an itemized accounting of the schools, police etc.
You owe me an apology for ganking my idea and then accusing me of not having the idea. :)
You want me to give credit for suggesting that consumers sit down at the table with the business and negotiate with both the business and their employees at the same time? Hmmmmm. 1/2 Credit for mentioning the consumers. It's a start.
Apparently when you hit 'submit spam' when someone posts something in a thread that has nothing to do with the post, it makes it go away. Did I just do something wrong? Or did I do something right?
So am I officially no longer allowed to post? Did I hurt your feelings?
"So am I officially no longer allowed to post? Did I hurt your feelings?"
You're on a short leash. Post your rants in the Open Thread, as it wasn't even remotely related to the topic being discussed here.
Chicago is centrally located to a lot of plastic processors, making it an ideal location for many businesses to get their people to the show cheaply. Florida is not loaded with plastic processors - many more people will need to fly to the show than did in the past. But the show was moved anyway, in large part because of the union work rules and wages at McCormick. Add in expensive power and hotel rooms, and the show goes to Orlando.
But it is only a 2 show contract - maybe it will move back. McCormick and the unions have some work to do.
On November 20th, 2009 at 05:12 AM, B is for Business said:
"They do on the Unit 4 School Board."
I wonder what the work rules are going to be on the school construction that will result from the increased sales tax. But hey, we had to pay prevailing wage at any rate, right? You have be an idiot to enter in a non value added sweetheart deal that gives the local union exclusive rights to the project. Competition and choice is a good thing, except when it involves our tax dollars
Don't forget, the president of the Unit 4 School Board is a union firefighter, and stated within the thread decrying the contract that he is owned by the unions. He's also a Republican, but given his support of taxes he might better be described as a RINO.
On November 23rd, 2009 at 07:18 AM, Keith_Hays said:
It is interesting that the Japanese Auto industry also shipped jobs overseas -- to the United States. While GM and Ford commenced building cars in Mexico their rivals were building cars in Illinois, Indiana and Tennessee with American union labor.
The Japanese car companies came here when Congress attempted to implement import barriers.
On November 26th, 2009 at 12:03 PM, B is for Business said:
You mean those places that tolerate slave labor, like Las Vegas and Florida
I thought Vegas was highly unionized. Especially in the casinos.
I thought Vegas was highly unionized. Especially in the casinos.
Rather than tell us what you think is true, check the facts for yourself before posting, and then tell us what you know
Michael Fuerst
Drawings, paintings and Urbana photos by Michael Fuerst will be displayed (along with works by Alberto Aguilar and Ryan Gray) at Springer Center (NW corner of Randolph and Church in Champaign) from Dec 2 to Jan 3
If you contact me, I can give you a personalized tour most afternoons in December.
http://www.ArtComesFuerst.com/ for the flyer announcing the exhibit.
For a further preview, http://www.artcomesfuerst.com/Photos_of_My_Art/index.htm
Of course Las Vegas is highly unionized.