...y'ever notice how uncomfortable some guys get when the conversation turns to sports?

Seems to be the pale, studious ones...

AZhitman wrote:...y'ever notice how uncomfortable some guys get when the conversation turns to sports?

Seems to be the pale, studious ones...

You seem to be going the long way around the barn...

...guess that's because the short way is cluttered with pejoratives.

I love sports. I just don't care to watch them.

That's okay, Isaac.

Sports watch you.

BusyBadger wrote:You seem to be going the long way around the barn...

That'd be a first.

My normal route:

Shens!

You'd never drive a cherry '69 Charger through a barn...

Can't see the taillights, but if that is the Dukes, it was a '68. They're nearly extinct because of that show, and, of course, I only learned this after I fell in love with them.

1968:


1969:


It's the little things I love.

Though the grille does have a split in it. Upon closer examination, I think you're right, Chad.

That might be from the sorry excuse for a movie they made not too long ago. Chances are any director stupid enough to cast Jessica Simpson for Daisy would have had no clue what year car to use.

Chad is right on both counts. I'm a big Dukes fan.

Oh, and while Catherine Bach was perfect for the TV role, Dukes-era Jessica was spectacular in the shorts.

AZhitman wrote:Oh, and while Catherine Bach was perfect for the TV role, Dukes-era Jessica was spectacular in the shorts.

Yes, indeed!

Didja see the "These Boots Are Made For Walking" Video? Whoa!

Z

I know we've gotten off topic since my post, I haven't been able to get on, however, just for the record, I don't live in a dream world. I'm sorry I actually studied this stuff when I was in college. Why do service reps get paid less than project managers? Because the skill set is less than what is required of a PM. The company isn't going to pay a SR a PM wage, otherwise PMs could be SRs and that'd be a waste of talent and resources. Companies will attract the talent that they want into certain positions via wages. It's really not that hard to grasp. Did unions serve a purpose through the 1970s? Absolutely, but as time has gone since the earlier part of that century, they've become more and more unnecessary, IMO.

As for sports, I'm not too big into professional sports. I'll watch them, but I absolutely love college sports.

smockers83 wrote:Why do service reps get paid less than project managers? Because the skill set is less than what is required of a PM.

Nobody has argued that it should be otherwise.

smockers83 wrote:Companies will attract the talent that they want into certain positions via wages. It's really not that hard to grasp.

This can still happen with a union.

smockers83 wrote:Did unions serve a purpose through the 1970s? Absolutely, but as time has gone since the earlier part of that century, they've become more and more unnecessary, IMO.

Wait... What? I mean, I hear that tired claim all the time in exactly the same way. But what exactly has led to the supposed obsolescence? Are large employers now gone? Is the power imbalance in contract negotiation a thing of the past?

smockers83 wrote:Companies will attract the talent that they want into certain positions via wages. It's really not that hard to grasp. Did unions serve a purpose through the 1970s? Absolutely, but as time has gone since the earlier part of that century, they've become more and more unnecessary, IMO.

Well if companies can attract talent via wages then unions are still necessary to control the supply of labor and the wages of their members.

Allowing an unlimited supply of non union workers forces wage rates down to the delight of corporations.
This is one reason our economy is in the shape it is in.
We lost too many well paying manufacturing jobs over the past decade with a republican in the white house
Unions along with companies provide the necessary training to provide a quality product.

Hire non union workers to do work in your house that are cheaper and you'll see the shoddy results.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote: Unions along with companies provide the necessary training to provide a quality product.

Hire non union workers to do work in your house that are cheaper and you'll see the shoddy results.

Telcoman

Union workers are no better trained or skilled than non-union workers with the same certifications and licenses.

You're confused.

AZhitman wrote:

telcoman wrote: Unions along with companies provide the necessary training to provide a quality product.

Hire non union workers to do work in your house that are cheaper and you'll see the shoddy results.

Telcoman

Union workers are no better trained or skilled than non-union workers with the same certifications and licenses.

You're confused.

Non union usually have no training, no certifications which is why they work cheap

You don't know what you are talking about

So you let them work on your car and in your house

telcoman wrote:You don't know what you are talking about

You must have missed this...

AZhitman wrote:Union workers are no better trained or skilled than non-union workers with the same certifications and license.

In any case, I just took a few minutes and did some searching and confined it to NJ to keep it local for you...

ContractorsLicense.org wrote:
Electrical Contractor's License

You need a license to do electrical work in New Jersey. To apply for an electrical contractor's license, contact:

Board of Examiners of Electrical Contractors
124 Halsey St., 6th Floor
P.O. Box 45006
Newark, NJ 07101
(973) 504-6410
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/nonmedical/electrical.htm
The Board does require you to pass an exam to get a license. To take the exam you must be over the age of 21, have a high school diploma or equivalent, and one of the following:

five years experience working with tools to install, alter or repair electrical wiring for light, heat or power
completion of a four-year Board-approved apprenticeship program and one year of Board-approved work experience
completion of 8,000 hours of experience working with tools to install, alter or repair electrical wiring for light, heat or power and 576 hours related classroom instruction
a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and two years of Board-approved work experience
The Board will review your application and if you're eligible they'll send you information on the exam they require. Prometric gives the exam. For information on the exam or scheduling, you can contact Prometric at:

Prometric
1260 Energy Lane
St. Paul, MN 55108
(800) 626-0750
http://www.prometric.com/newjersey
The electrical contractor exam has three parts -- one on business and law, one on the trade, and one on alarm systems. The business and law exam is open book with 50 multiple choice questions. It lasts two hours.

Nowhere did I read a requirement regarding mandatory union membership.

Full website: http://www.contractors-license.org/nj/N ... .html#elec

Or are you actually saying, all other things being equal, a union worker is more skilled and proficient than a non-union worker based solely his union membership?

telcoman wrote: Allowing an unlimited supply of non union workers forces wage rates down to the delight of corporations.
This is one reason our economy is in the shape it is in.

Source?

telcoman wrote: Hire non union workers to do work in your house that are cheaper and you'll see the shoddy results.

telcoman wrote: Non union usually have no training, no certifications which is why they work cheap

telcoman wrote:Non union usually have no training, no certifications which is why they work cheap

I'm amazed they let you have internet access in the head injury ward.

That's quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read from you, Howie.

telcoman wrote:So you let them work on your car and in your house

My dealer mechanics: Non-union.
The guys who built my house: Non-union.
My pool was constructed by non-union workers.
The licensed contractor who built my additions: Non-union.
My electrician: Non-union.
My plumber: Non-union.
My A/C repairman: Non-union.

Who doesn't know what they're talking about? How about a source for your ridiculous statement?

telcoman wrote: Hire non union workers to do work in your house that are cheaper and you'll see the shoddy results.

Kinda like the shoddy results you get from UNION workers who take shortcuts and limit their performance to match the rest of the union, so that none of the unions members have to actually excel in their performance?

Ya that sounds like a winner.

http://www.state.nj.us/health/njcbir/

Seriously, though, the NJ regs have changed.

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/faq/elecfaqs.htm#1a

"An applicant for examination must show proof that he/she has had, immediately preceding the submission of the application, at least five years of practical hands-on experience working with tools in the installation, alteration or repair of wiring for electric light, heat or power, which work shall have been done in compliance with the National Electrical Code."

So that opens it up quite a bit. Passing a 3-part exam is still a requirement.

IBCoupe wrote:

smockers83 wrote:Companies will attract the talent that they want into certain positions via wages. It's really not that hard to grasp.

This can still happen with a union.

So when it comes to compensation, coming full circle to where this debate started, why is a union needed then?

IBCoupe wrote:

smockers83 wrote:Did unions serve a purpose through the 1970s? Absolutely, but as time has gone since the earlier part of that century, they've become more and more unnecessary, IMO.

Wait... What? I mean, I hear that tired claim all the time in exactly the same way. But what exactly has led to the supposed obsolescence? Are large employers now gone? Is the power imbalance in contract negotiation a thing of the past?

Unions, with higher wages than the market equilibrium, cost potential jobs otherwise. A company can only spend so much on labor, so if labor costs are too high per unit due to union wages, they cut at the expense of headcount. This forces excess labor into the rest of the market, thus driving down non-union wages. This then gives the perception that unions get better deals, which they may in nominal terms, but it makes it more lucrative than what it should be...at least when it comes to the employee.

In the words of Milton Friedman:
"When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector.

That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries."

telcoman wrote:

smockers83 wrote:Companies will attract the talent that they want into certain positions via wages. It's really not that hard to grasp. Did unions serve a purpose through the 1970s? Absolutely, but as time has gone since the earlier part of that century, they've become more and more unnecessary, IMO.

Well if companies can attract talent via wages then unions are still necessary to control the supply of labor and the wages of their members.

Allowing an unlimited supply of non union workers forces wage rates down to the delight of corporations.
This is one reason our economy is in the shape it is in.
We lost too many well paying manufacturing jobs over the past decade with a republican in the white house
Unions along with companies provide the necessary training to provide a quality product.

Yes, Howie, there is an unlimited supply of non-union workers, however, there's only 6.7 billion people. Non-union companies must be getting their labor from aliens in other worlds and importing the products through space.

As for losing too many well-paying jobs, that's nobody's fault except the unions. Let's take the steel industry as an example. The Rust Belt has lost a lot of jobs in this industry as mills close. The mills didn't close because there's less demand for steel. Steel has been in high demand for quite some time, it hit an all-time high I think just before the economic collapse. No, the reason these jobs and mills have disappeared is because those mills weren't economically competitive with other mills in other countries. In those other countries, cheaper labor exists. Since the US steel market didn't have access to that cheaper labor, they kept producing until they could no longer produce and either closed up shop or moved operations over seas. This has nothing to do with policies of past Republican White Houses. In fact, since it's union labor related, just to stick a finger somewhere, I guess I could argue that it's Democratic White House policies that resulted in those job losses.

smockers83 wrote:So when it comes to compensation, coming full circle to where this debate started, why is a union needed then?

Its not needed per se. But it is within their rights to have and it generally has good results from en employee's perspective. Its collective bargaining. And ultimately, it brings much more negotiating power to the table than most singular employees can. This is undeniable...otherwise, this debate probably wouldn't exist.

But with regards to Isaac's post, you are changing the context of the statement with this response. He was answering a specific question dealing with free market. And to which I might add, the free market allows for collective bargaining. Would it not be less "free" if we removed those rights?

smockers83 wrote:Unions, with higher wages than the market equilibrium, cost potential jobs otherwise. A company can only spend so much on labor, so if labor costs are too high per unit due to union wages, they cut at the expense of headcount. This forces excess labor into the rest of the market, thus driving down non-union wages. This then gives the perception that unions get better deals, which they may in nominal terms, but it makes it more lucrative than what it should be...at least when it comes to the employee.

Depends. If a company needs 5 workers to complete a certain job, why would they hire 6? Last I checked, companies aren't in the business of over-staffing simply because they have the income to do it. The ROI of an additional employee that adds no additional value is going to be awfully low. Perhaps negative. Of course, a company that can only afford 4 where 5 would be necessary or ideal is under a different circumstance and would likely follow the pattern you describe. Point is, you're only partially right.

As for market forces and such, maybe. But generally, if the company was smart about how it negotiated its contract and allowed itself to be the party to decide who gets hired, the costs are not going to be entirely unabated. Higher wages will usually allow the company to choose from the best potential hires. They get to be a lot more picky if there are larger pools of workers. That said, if non-union companies want the same people, they are going to have to pay more as they will be competing with the union wages.

That said, consider what might happen without any unions. Without any significant force to drive the wages up, its likely all the wages (for those particular jobs) might actually fall.

smockers83 wrote:In the words of Milton Friedman:
"When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector.

That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries."

Just an FYI. Unions were part of that free market system for the past 2 centuries. So how can he possibly conclude or even imply that unions had nothing to do with it? There is nothing scholarly about that quote and nothing analytical we can take away from it as an argument for or against unions.

Keep in mind that unions are PART OF the free market. Workers can certainly choose not to take a union job. And non-union employees can certainly start up a union. Or is it somehow that you think that the free market does not include the right of workers to collectively negotiate the terms of employment. Lest you forget, the employers are not bound to agree to any terms. Otherwise it wouldn't be a free market anymore.

Let's go back to the part where Howie said something colossally stupid TWICE and proceeded to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about.



Or, this works just as well:

smockers83 wrote: So when it comes to compensation, coming full circle to where this debate started, why is a union needed then?

smockers83 wrote:So when it comes to compensation, coming full circle to where this debate started, why is a union needed then?

Because compensation tends to go up when you're in a union. Doesn't mean there isn't wage competition anymore. Further, a union isn't just about wages: it's about not getting trampled by your employer. When you're a human working like a cog in a machine, it's easy to be treated like one. A union gets you a representative at the table, negotiating the terms of your labor. It's a power-balancing tool.

And, no, Z & smockers, I'm not ranting about "big bad corporations." I can see you setting fire to that strawman from here. I am saying that employers can trample their employees, and when they do, employees get two choices: unemployment or organization.

smockers83 wrote:Unions, with higher wages than the market equilibrium, cost potential jobs otherwise.

So do a lot of things. We still like having clean water, clean air, and children who are enjoying both, instead of working in a factory making your shoes.

smockers83 wrote:A company can only spend so much on labor, so if labor costs are too high per unit due to union wages, they cut at the expense of headcount.

Or they cut at the expense of other things. Businesses are dynamic. Labor costs don't exist in a vacuum.

smockers83 wrote:This forces excess labor into the rest of the market, thus driving down non-union wages.

That doesn't follow. Wages have gone up. That not everybody in India who wants one gets an H-1 visa doesn't mean they're suddenly willing to settle for crap pay.

smockers83 wrote:This then gives the perception that unions get better deals, which they may in nominal terms, but it makes it more lucrative than what it should be...at least when it comes to the employee.

Unions do get better deals. That's what happens when you get more power in negotiations.

smockers83 wrote:In the words of Milton Friedman:
"When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector

Milton Friedman is a crazy person. This doesn't, by and large, happen. If it did, there wouldn't ever be a desire to organize. But there is. A free market does not result in higher wages. A free market results in unhealthy, poor, child workers.

Milton Friedman by ways of smockers83 wrote:That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries."

While it's true that the pie grows for everybody, that's because folks tend to organize in order to make sure that it does.

Rediculous licensing requirements are another way occupations are restricted. Im not a staunch "no license" libertarian, but licensing some things is just patently absurd, like interior design for one. This is one thing Rick Scott got right in FL, removing these silly requirements on professions that have no business having them. And the opposition came out in full force lunacy too. I remember reading one quote from a union rep from the Interior Designers, which went loosely as "removing licensing on interior designers will contribute to x thousands of deaths a year". How absurd. I see a need for licensing some things, like doctors, dentists, perhaps even electricians. However, I'm not convinced that its the proper role of the government to issue said licenses.

stebo0728 wrote:Rediculous licensing requirements are another way occupations are restricted. Im not a staunch "no license" libertarian, but licensing some things is just patently absurd, like interior design for one. This is one thing Rick Scott got right in FL, removing these silly requirements on professions that have no business having them. And the opposition came out in full force lunacy too. I remember reading one quote from a union rep from the Interior Designers, which went loosely as "removing licensing on interior designers will contribute to x thousands of deaths a year". How absurd. I see a need for licensing some things, like doctors, dentists, perhaps even electricians. However, I'm not convinced that its the proper role of the government to issue said licenses.

Perhaps the job skills required exceed the education levels of The Florida Education System?

The job may require more skills and training than you realize?

Would any business want to hire an unlicensed interior designer before spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_design

Telcoman

Stebo, you know that an interior designer's work involves a lot more than wallpaper and wax plants, right? It often involves radical changes to an existing building's interior, or a planned layout of a new building's interior, each one requiring intimacy with and adherence to local codes and regulations with regard to safety of all sorts. That can range from the height of a half-wall to the requirements for stair railings and proper lighting wattage.

Yeah, it's fun to poke at what we perceive to be overbearing government regulation, but before we poo-poo, shouldn't we ask why the government felt it necessary to regulate the trade in the first place? Why other States regulate the same industry? Two other States require licensing for interior design: Nevada and Louisiana. Think the real estate market in those three states might maybe have something in common?

And from a look at this website, it seems like you're confusing "interior designer" and "interior decorator." Commercial interior design requires a license. Residential interior design and interior decoration does not.

And as far as I can tell, Rick Scott hasn't eliminated the licensing requirement for interior designers.

IBCoupe wrote:Two other States require licensing for interior design: Nevada and Louisiana. Think the real estate market in those three states might maybe have something in common?

Lots of drunk people?