while i applaud them for helping retain a living wage, some of their actions have had severe negative consequences where you would least expect it, our farmers.
"Today, the average member of the union in Oakland makes $147,000 per year in wages, with benefits equal to another $82,000 per year."
--
That is a huge amount of money, especially considering that includes entry level positions. While I understand these machines are complicated, and don't blame them for wanting to keep their jobs, I didn't expect over 200k a year total to be the average.
Remember any time a group of people cooperates to maximize profit for it's members, it is....
Oh right - bad if the group of people isn't already wealthy. This is because unions are defined as bad.
Good when it's a group of already (relatively) wealthy people. This is because corporations are defined as good.
I know I know... it's because of the fact that unions involve the government in their actions. No - that's not it... The corporations do that too.
Maybe it's that the corporations don't engage in corrupt behavior like the unions do, and hire people only using free market principles - like that time google and apple (etc) decided to price fix engineering hires. (oh no... that's not right either).
Honestly I don't see a lot of difference between unions and corporations, other than the starting conditions of the people who form them. Well, once you replace the loaded terms with descriptions of the behaviors both engage in.
Well, that's what the hand weavers wanted when the automated loom came out, and I don't think anyone thinks it would have been a good idea to destroy the automated loom to help them keep having jobs
Freedom of association should be an enshrined right that is not open to negotiation or compromise, and a counterbalance to capitalists overarching influence in their lobbies and trade associations, and also a neutralizing force for the excess in labor supply as a consequence of population growth. However, unions desperately need some serious and urgent reforms to join the 21st century and leave behind these old habits and antics for it to succeed in securing workers rights.
jerrysievert|10 years ago
the bigger downside to this is that farmed goods aren't able to make it to the international market: http://www.opb.org/news/article/port-portland-farmers-agricu...
while i applaud them for helping retain a living wage, some of their actions have had severe negative consequences where you would least expect it, our farmers.
vvanders|10 years ago
rodgerd|10 years ago
daj40|10 years ago
--
That is a huge amount of money, especially considering that includes entry level positions. While I understand these machines are complicated, and don't blame them for wanting to keep their jobs, I didn't expect over 200k a year total to be the average.
This is especially true considering that the average individual income in Oakland is around 32k a year. (http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/california/oakland)
sophacles|10 years ago
Oh right - bad if the group of people isn't already wealthy. This is because unions are defined as bad.
Good when it's a group of already (relatively) wealthy people. This is because corporations are defined as good.
I know I know... it's because of the fact that unions involve the government in their actions. No - that's not it... The corporations do that too.
Maybe it's that the corporations don't engage in corrupt behavior like the unions do, and hire people only using free market principles - like that time google and apple (etc) decided to price fix engineering hires. (oh no... that's not right either).
Honestly I don't see a lot of difference between unions and corporations, other than the starting conditions of the people who form them. Well, once you replace the loaded terms with descriptions of the behaviors both engage in.
mring33621|10 years ago
oh_sigh|10 years ago
notNow|10 years ago