France allows unions to hold its economy and government hostage.

[HenryChinaski]

The cancer that got us a 40 hour work week and a day off in September.

And safe working conditions, Fire exits, extinguishers etc..

 

[HenryChinaski]

Well today they’re public sector unions shutting down a national economy of a country that already has just about the most exceedingly generous labor standards in the world.

So thanks for the history lesson, but these circumstances are a tad different.

Would you want to have been a factory worker in say 1904 America? Ever hear of the Triangle Shirt waist factory fire? Look up. Labor unions helped mitigate those types or tragedies.

 

[aociswundumho]

The right's hatred of workers having power, rights, better wages is one of the top insanities in our country.

No, we're against groups of people forming labor cartels in order to secure above market wage rates for themselves.

France has much, much better "protections" of their workers than the US does, and the result is the French are much poorer than Americans are.

 

[Craig234]

You would apparently be happy if unions had the power to literally shut down this country until they get whatever they desire.

Would you be in favor of unions blocking access to hospitals and letting people die without care until their demands are met?
Would you be in favor of police unions refusing to provide public safety services until their demands are met?
Would you be in favor of tech unions shutting off internet access to tens of millions of people until their demands are met?
Would you be in favor of fire unions letting houses burn until their demands are met?

Either you think unions should be able to hold entire nations and societies hostage until their demands are met, or you don't. If you do, you're an insane person. If you don't, you're a reasonable person, like me. What's going on in France is insanity. The government allows it. That's crazy.

This topic is not about "hatred of workers having power, rights, better wages." It's about unions (albeit in a different country) being allowed to shut down the public services their society relies on until their demands are met.

Countries that go to war with one another try to do this (among other tactics). They try to disrupt the enemy country's public services and transportation infrastructure the country needs just to function. These tactics are economic civil warfare. For you to whine that this is all about "hating workers" is the only real insanity here.

I could discuss your point, but it seems a waste. Instead, you answer three questions: should there be any limits on how much inequality there is? If not, "you're insane". If so, how do you say society should prevent excessive inequality?

 

[Craig234]

France has much, much better "protections" of their workers than the US does, and the result is the French are much poorer than Americans are.

Why are wages so low in France compared to the US? - Quora

 

[Craig234]

You would apparently be happy if unions had the power to literally shut down this country until they get whatever they desire.

Would you be in favor of unions blocking access to hospitals and letting people die without care until their demands are met?
Would you be in favor of police unions refusing to provide public safety services until their demands are met?
Would you be in favor of tech unions shutting off internet access to tens of millions of people until their demands are met?
Would you be in favor of fire unions letting houses burn until their demands are met?

Either you think unions should be able to hold entire nations and societies hostage until their demands are met, or you don't. If you do, you're an insane person. If you don't, you're a reasonable person, like me. What's going on in France is insanity. The government allows it. That's crazy.

This topic is not about "hatred of workers having power, rights, better wages." It's about unions (albeit in a different country) being allowed to shut down the public services their society relies on until their demands are met.

Countries that go to war with one another try to do this (among other tactics). They try to disrupt the enemy country's public services and transportation infrastructure the country needs just to function. These tactics are economic civil warfare. For you to whine that this is all about "hating workers" is the only real insanity here.

Also: do you understand that owners of America's companies have "the power to literally shut down this country until they get whatever they desire"? Huh, why don't they? Why wouldn't those same reasons apply to labor? Why do you only use that scare tactic about labor, and not owners, and why don't you understand that giving labor no power results in plutocracy, and democracy can't exist?

 

[Craig234]

Personal disclaimed about the right whining about the effects of French strikes: I've been woken up at 6AM IIRC on a train to Paris, and told to get off in a small town on the way because the train had gone on strike. So, ya, I know the effects. And yes, I support labor.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about mitigating the effects of strikes, but they can't be held with people who don't understand the issues and have simplistic, don't give a crap about labor views.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Would you want to have been a factory worker in say 1904 America? Ever hear of the Triangle Shirt waist factory fire? Look up. Labor unions helped mitigate those types or tragedies.

Whatever unions did over a century ago does not entitle them to do whatever they want today. Like every other type of organization in a society, unions have to work within the legal and policy framework the country's government establishes. The government can either 1) allow unions to shut down the national economy when they don't get their way, or 2) not allow to unions shut down the national economy when they don't get their way. France has chosen option 1, which is very bizarre and self-sabotaging.

 

[Craig234]

Like every other type of organization in a society, unions have to work within the legal and policy framework the country's government establishes.

Goldman Sachs is an 'other type of organization' in our society. How did they have to work within the legal and policy framework our government established, when they prevented effectively all regulation, participated in schemes that caused the Great Recession, caused themselves to have insane loans repaid at 100% with tax dollars while Americans lot trillions, and had no accountability?

France has chosen option 1, which is very bizarre and self-sabotaging.

Perhaps our allowing Wall Street to run wild, and to literally be in charge of our public treasury department, is bizarre and sabotaging of our public interest? Perhaps you could point me to your post concerned about THAT, and not only about labor?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Also: do you understand that owners of America's companies have "the power to literally shut down this country until they get whatever they desire"? Huh, why don't they?

They don't have that power, because that tactic is generally illegal, even if a rich and powerful person were to try to exercise it. And that's why they don't. Typically it's illegal under anti-trust laws. Unions are exempt from those laws, so they're allowed to do it, unless the government explicitly forbids it, which they should.

Why wouldn't those same reasons apply to labor?

They should. It should be illegal to interfere with transportation and other public service provision as a way of getting certain demands met.

Why do you only use that scare tactic about labor, and not owners

Because it's illegal for owners to do the things that labor unions do.

and why don't you understand that giving labor no power results in plutocracy, and democracy can't exist?

I'm not interested in histrionics about "plutocracy." No one is talking about "giving labor no power." No organization should be able to cause basic and essential public services to cease until their demands are met. Private companies that attempt to do these types of things are violating laws and would be prosecuted for it.

 

[aociswundumho]

Why are wages so low in France compared to the US? - Quora

Quora? lol, great source.

Notice that he doesn't mention that the unemployment rate is almost 3x as high in France as it is in the US. Nor does it mention the taxes they pay. France's payroll tax alone is huge.

 

[Craig234]

They don't have that power, because that tactic is generally illegal, even if a rich and powerful person were to try to exercise it. And that's why they don't. Typically it's illegal under anti-trust laws. Unions are exempt from those laws, so they're allowed to do it, unless the government explicitly forbids it, which they should.

Perhaps you could point me to the law where it's illegal for owners to shut down companies. You also do understand that anti-trust laws have had almost no enforcement since Reagan?

But your argument is, we couldn't possibly give unions the power to be exempt from anti-trust laws and be able to shut down our economy, and unions have been exempt from anti-trust laws for many decades and have not shut down the economy. Huh, good argument. Can I file it with proof that bumblebees can't fly?

They should. It should be illegal to interfere with transportation and other public service provision as a way of getting certain demands met.

You did not understand the question. It was about reasons people with some power choose not to shut down the economy, not about "illegal" which takes the power away.

I'm not interested in histrionics about "plutocracy."

You're only interested in histrionics about "giving labor any power in negotiations will shut down the economy", arguing against power they've had for many decades and not shut down the economy.

No one is talking about "giving labor no power."

Actually, taking away the power of collective bargaining, which is empowered by the right to strike, pretty much is what labor's power is. So you are for giving labor no power, but saying you're not.

 

[Craig234]

Quora? lol, great source.

Actually, it's a very good article. You, on the other hand, have nothing to say.

Notice that he doesn't mention that the unemployment rate is almost 3x as high in France as it is in the US. Nor does it mention the taxes they pay. France's payroll tax alone is huge.

He discusses the relevant topic, wages. There's a link right on the page you ignored, to "Why are wages so low and taxes so high in France?" He discussed how the unemployed in France have a lot more than in the US.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Whatever unions did over a century ago does not entitle them to do whatever they want today. Like every other type of organization in a society, unions have to work within the legal and policy framework the country's government establishes. The government can either 1) allow unions to shut down the national economy when they don't get their way, or 2) not allow to unions shut down the national economy when they don't get their way. France has chosen option 1, which is very bizarre and self-sabotaging.

I've a cousin that is a Police officer, he's in a union. My best friend is a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive engineers. Transportation unions within that sector of the industry are vital because they help maintain the skill levels, education, training and safe working conditions for the workers doing those jobs. Without them, training and safety standards would plummet as would wages.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I could discuss your point, but it seems a waste. Instead, you answer three questions: should there be any limits on how much inequality there is? If not, "you're insane". If so, how do you say society should prevent excessive inequality?

Those are two questions. (1) sure, that'd be great. (2) consider Piketty (ironically the foremost French inequality economist), who observes single nations pursuing redistributive taxation chase their wealth away, so wealth and inheritance taxation require global taxing authority to enforce. So get to work on that.

Now that that's out of the way, let's admit that this line of questioning is a vague distraction from this issue, which is much more specific. The union people trying to grind the French economy to a halt to get their demands met are not asking for the nation's rich to cut them a check. This is not about inequality. It's much more specific.

Governments do not have to let unions hold them hostage. They can simply pass a law that says "you don't get to hold us hostage" and that'd be the end of it. The French government chooses to subject itself to this hostility. It's a conscious choice and is unnecessary.

So now that I answered your questions, you can now answer mine. Tell us where you'd draw the line in the sand as to unions' coercive power to interfere with the provision of basic public services.

 

[Craig234]

Those are two questions.

Ya, I started to ask three questions, decided to reduce it to two, and forgot to edit.

(1) sure, that'd be great. (2) consider Piketty (ironically the foremost French inequality economist), who observes single nations pursuing redistributive taxation chase their wealth away, so wealth and inheritance taxation require global taxing authority to enforce. So get to work on that.

Now that that's out of the way, let's admit that this line of questioning is a vague distraction from this issue, which is much more specific. The union people trying to grind the French economy to a halt to get their demands met are not asking for the nation's rich to cut them a check. This is not about inequality. It's much more specific.

Governments do not have to let unions hold them hostage. They can simply pass a law that says "you don't get to hold us hostage" and that'd be the end of it. The French government chooses to subject itself to this hostility. It's a conscious choice and is unnecessary.

So now that I answered your questions, you can now answer mine. Tell us where you'd draw the line in the sand as to unions' coercive power to interfere with the provision of basic public services.

You did NOT answer my question how to limit inequality, though you mentioned global issues on taxation, and you then blew them off, which actually are very important - we need international cooperation on taxation, having a huge amount of the planet's wealth go through tax evasion is a disaster. I don't have a short answer to your big question.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Yeah, damn France, look at all the benefits their workers get, as opposed to border line slave treatment of workers in US. Seriously, right wingers are truly sick people

How U.S. Employee Benefits Compare To Europe’s

Yes look at the terrible things they have done like getting rid of child labor, the creation of collective bargaining and the 40 hour week. Speaking about cancer those terrible unions even fought to keep workers from being exposed to cancer causing materials. Just imagine the impact on profits.

Yeah, Republicans have been destroying unions, and what do we get? Pathetic pay, less and less benefits, have to work longer hours, no or little bonuses, having to borrown sick and vacation hours from others when someone is sick , little to no maternity/paternity leave, and obscene wealth disparity and poverty rates

What happens when you let the rich rob the country blind

Robotics and 10 cent an hour wages in China killed most of manufacturing here, not the unions.

I've never been in a union a day in my life, but starting in the 60's virtually every manufacturing business I've known of around where I lived or been a part of has moved out of the country.

Yup, corporate greed. But these people worship the greedy rich scumbags that outsource jobs just for bigger profits and more obscene salaries

 

[Neomalthusian]

I've a cousin that is a Police officer, he's in a union. My best friend is a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive engineers. Transportation unions within that sector of the industry are vital because they help maintain the skill levels, education, training and safe working conditions for the workers doing those jobs. Without them, training and safety standards would plummet as would wages.

Unions are not required in order for a country or workplace to have training requirements and safety standards. The same governments that allow unions to exist and operate by various rules government establishes are the same governments that pass and enforce other labor, training, certification and safety standards.

But with that said, unions could evolve into and/or blend or merge with professional associations that are able to offer superior training and professional development, expertise and qualifications to continue doing important work, and thereby win competitive bids to do that work. If there was a major project to expand electricity service to an area or replace badly aged infrastructure somewhere, consider how well-positioned a group of IBEW workers would be to meet the bid's expertise requirements and win the bid to do the work.

These organizations of trained workers are not necessarily useless, nor should they be forbidden by forming organizations with each other with the shared goal of obtaining good work for themselves, nor is that my argument. All professional firms do that, they team up and drum up work. My argument is that groups of IBEW workers obviously shouldn't be able to shut off people's electricity until the government agrees to raise their salaries. And I'm not saying France allows that level of service disruption, I don't believe they do or would. But public transportation systems should be considered essential in much the same way as electricity and water are. The economy relies on them. They're public services, and public services shouldn't be withheld from the public until pay demands are met.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Yeah, damn France, look at all the benefits their workers get, as opposed to border line slave treatment of workers in US. Seriously, right wingers are truly sick people

You don't even know what the topic is.

Yup, corporate greed.

This has nothing to do with corporations. You're not even aware of the topic.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Ya, I started to ask three questions, decided to reduce it to two, and forgot to edit.

You did NOT answer my question how to limit inequality, though you mentioned global issues on taxation, and you then blew them off, which actually are very important - we need international cooperation on taxation, having a huge amount of the planet's wealth go through tax evasion is a disaster. I don't have a short answer to your big question.

I signaled that limiting inequality ultimately requires enforceable wealth taxation, which requires global tax governance that doesn't currently exist. That's essentially Piketty's observation, who is one of the foremost economists on inequality in the world.

But then I move on from this point, because it's basically a diversion from the thread topic. The French trade unions coordinating to paralyze the country's transportation and other public services are not addressing wealth inequality in any way, whether in their own country, much less the U.S. or the world. They're public services. This is not about inequality generally. So trying to bang the drum about inequality is a diversion attempt.

This topic is specifically about the willingness of governments to let unions hold their economies hostage by being willing to consider transportation and garbage collection and other critical public services "non-essential" and thus subject to strikes as a means of unions getting to extort their pay demands from the public.

 

[Craig234]

I signaled that limiting inequality ultimately requires enforceable wealth taxation, which requires global tax governance that doesn't currently exist. That's essentially Piketty's observation, who is one of the foremost economists on inequality in the world.

But then I move on from this point, because it's basically a diversion from the thread topic. The French trade unions coordinating to paralyze the country's transportation and other public services are not addressing wealth inequality in any way, whether in their own country, much less the U.S. or the world. They're public services. This is not about inequality generally. So trying to bang the drum about inequality is a diversion attempt.

This topic is specifically about the willingness of governments to let unions hold their economies hostage by being willing to consider transportation and garbage collection and other critical public services "non-essential" and thus subject to strikes as a means of unions getting to extort their pay demands from the public.

So, your position is, 'unlimited inequality can't be stopped, so let's not talk about it, and only about why we need to take away labor's ability to get higher wages'. You simply dodged my point that unions have HAD that exemption from anti-trust for several decades, yet your doomsday predictions haven't happened.

 

[dobieg]

The French work 1,500 hours a year and also get an average of 30 days vacation.


Now they're bitching because they need to raise the age for pensioners so they can pay for all the free things they give out even though anyone barely works.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Perhaps you could point me to the law where it's illegal for owners to shut down companies.

A company could shut itself down if it wanted, but there would be legal and bankruptcy issues with doing that because the company would be responsible for satisfying its outstanding contracts and paying its existing debts. That's quite different than withholding essential services to get demands met. Our water is provided by a private (but highly regulated) company. If that company had a piece of local legislation it objected to that the city council passed, and it said "we're shutting off everyone's water until you reverse that decision," the water company would be sued and penalized like crazy.

You also do understand that anti-trust laws have had almost no enforcement since Reagan?

I don't understand that because I don't believe that's true. Antitrust Case Filings

But your argument is, we couldn't possibly give unions the power to be exempt from anti-trust laws and be able to shut down our economy, and unions have been exempt from anti-trust laws for many decades and have not shut down the economy.

They've tried to interfere with it in major ways in the past and thankfully our government stepped in and forbade it. These instances bemoaned by union faithful to this day.

You're only interested in histrionics about "giving labor any power in negotiations will shut down the economy",

This is public sector. When public services the economy heavily relies on are taken away, it essentially shuts down the economy. That's not histrionics. It's the stated purpose and goal of the strike.

Another note about the governmental sector, the alleged "power" government unions have to extort their demands is illusory. The government has lawmaking power over all of this. In this country not even a city council can be forced to ratify and fund a contract, even when an arbitrator "awards" it to them. The democratically elected legislature has total veto power over all this. Governments allow unions to express this "power" for whatever silly political reasons, when the real power at the end of the day rests with the government itself.

Actually, taking away the power of collective bargaining, which is empowered by the right to strike, pretty much is what labor's power is. So you are for giving labor no power, but saying you're not.

If as you're suggesting the only way to "give" public sector unions power or for them to have any power is to allow them to hold public services hostage over the public until the demands are met, then unfortunately the only solution is for public sector unions is for them to have zero power. But that's based on the all-or-nothing way you're characterizing it, which is that they either have total power over the government itself and the entire society, or they have none.

Time to answer my question: would you support unions being able to block access to hospitals and letting patients die without care? If so, defend that position. If not, explain why not.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So, your position is, 'unlimited inequality can't be stopped, so let's not talk about it

You're working very hard to completely misquote me. The answer to your inequality question is "see Piketty, et al." The reason I'm saying let's not talk about it is because it isn't the thread topic.

and only about why we need to take away labor's ability to get higher wages'. You simply dodged my point that unions have HAD that exemption from anti-trust for several decades, yet your doomsday predictions haven't happened.

It hasn't happened because our government stepped in at certain critical times and declared that unions could not do what they were trying to do, which was significantly interfere with the nation's economy to get their demands met.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Actually, taking away the power of collective bargaining, which is empowered by the right to strike, pretty much is what labor's power is. So you are for giving labor no power

One other thing about this. There are many many cases of unions representing workers despite those workers having zero legal right to strike. How or why could they do this, if what you're saying is true? Police, fire, hospital and other emergency and health services are almost never allowed to strike, by law, because it's unconscionable to think that we'd let our law enforcement, emergency responders, and so on to literally threaten people's lives and basic safety until their pay demands are met. So it's illegal for them to strike. Yet unions still eagerly come in to represent these workers. How is this possible, if the inability to strike means they have zero power?