Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's up to the union to decide if they want to subject themselves to Duty of Fair Representation or not.
  2. First, a recap of the basics: 1) "Right To Work" is the name of a law that says "union security clauses" are illegal. "Union security clauses" are when a union asks an employer to agree to require the union's bargaining unit employees hand over money to the union, as well as agree to terminate employees who refuse, at the request of the union. 2) The Supreme Court of the United States declared that union security clauses in the public sector are unconstitutional. 3) Illinois governor Pritzker signed a law forbidding municipal governments from enacting their own Right To Work ordinances. 4) Union-friendly politicians in Illinois are now proposing a state constitutional amendment banning Right To Work regulations statewide. (3) and (4) can only apply to the private sector in Illinois. The public sector is Right To Work nation-wide. Here is what I'm interested to know: union security clauses are "permissive subjects of bargaining," so couldn't an employer just refuse to agree in bargaining to a union security clause? I am pretty certain the answer to this is yes. In other words, if I am a city council, I couldn't pass an ordinance establishing Right To Work rules, but if I'm management, and negotiating with unions in that same city, I could just decide I don't agree with the union security clause in the contract. Seems kind of silly to me to amend a state constitution to forbid a certain type of law that any managerial negotiator could nevertheless simply decide they don't agree to it in negotiations.
  3. Is that what you think Warren's tax proposal is? You're not paying attention.
  4. Another question is what causes supporters of this to assume that a financial transaction tax (Sanders) or a wealth tax (Warren) which are proposed jointly with this student debt policy would have any sort of desired effect? Italy and France tried a FTT and raised about one quarter of the revenue they projected it would raise. Piketty for example (who favors redistributive taxation) has essentially warned against single nations pursuing wealth taxes because of capital flight.So in addition to a backward moral hazard of a policy concerning student debt forgiveness, there is also a "how it's paid for" aspect that is also almost certainly very bad domestic economic policy.
  5. Just because there have been repeated comments that miss the point -- nobody is seriously asking that the federal government reimburse them for tuition or already-paid student loans. The question "will I be reimbursed" is rhetorical, meant to demonstrate a point that, between two identically situated people but where one delayed gratification and diligently paid off their loans and another who maximized gratification and minimized their loan repayments, the less responsible debtor is much more highly rewarded by this policy than the more responsible one. The whole idea raises countless other questions though too. How can you provide this debt relief just once? If you only provide it once, then this policy is basically an extremely expensive, shameless political stunt meant to buy votes to get its proponent elected, which provides extreme benefit to one lucky cohort of Americans. If on the other hand you do provide debt relief repeatedly, when will you provide it again? If you signal that this will be done repeatedly, it drastically reduces students' and families' risk analysis when it comes to taking on student loans. Their risk aversion drops significantly and they become all the more willing to take on massive debt regardless of whether the education it buys will position them to pay it back. And who really benefits from that ultimately? Universities and their administrators. The same ones that have failed to contain the rising costs of college. They benefit from that flood of easy credit that debtors are now all the more likely to carelessly accumulate. Another issue is this creates yet another huge work disincentive for households that have the potential for a second spouse work and significantly increase their incomes and reduce their debts on their own. Example: A family of four has Dad earning $95,000 and Mom has the option to either work for $55,000 per year or stay home. They have a combined $100,000 in student loans outstanding. If Mom accepts the $55k/year job and brings their income to $150,000, their student loan forgiveness drops by $33,300 ($16,650 each). Further they have childcare costs that will cost whatever significant amount, say $15,000 or so. So already Mom is basically working full time for no additional financial benefit to the family. Add to that the ACA subsidy cliff (if the family does work that doesn't provide employer-sponsored insurance) and the family would then also have to pay probably $12,000 more per year in premiums each year, because they will get $0.00 in premium subsidies since their income is over 400% of the FPL for a family of four. Warren's debt forgiveness policy is idiotic, the same way the ACA's subsidy cliff is idiotic. This family is basically compelled to have Mom not accept that job and continue delaying her career advancement because imbecilic policies like this penalize the family for choosing to make more money.
  6. This is a gotcha question for which Warren (Sanders too for that matter) has no way out. Paid your own student debt off? Tough luck. Family earned $100,001? Tough luck. Pay for your kids' college in cash? Tough luck. Are there a lot of people out there with student loans who would cheer for the debt being forgiven? Yeah. But there are even more who already paid for college for themselves and/or their children, and as they start to think about this, they're going to get really pissed off. This is the risk a politician takes when they push imbecilic populism like this.
  7. They're not as influential if they're all pulling in a variety of different directions. If you're imagining that they're all conspiring toward the same singular end goal (whatever we imagine that might be) then it's going to be really easy to feel buy into this rich vs. everyone else conspiracy mantra. Many of the mega-rich lean liberal. Others lean conservative. Many rich people control businesses that compete against other businesses and thus their interests are somewhat against each other because each wants different things that serve their own personal competitive advantage. Soros tries to influence differently than Koch. Dimon tries to influence differently than Bezos. Medium-size business leaders worth $100 million or less try to influence differently in one state than the same type of person might in another state. And a lot of rich people are politically reactive but not politically proactive. That is, they don't even attempt to influence politics all that much, they just sit on the political sidelines, quietly watch and talk to their teams of lawyers and accountants to adjust when things change politically. If there were actually severely restricted competition such that it were essentially an oligopoly (others could not sell) or worse, a monopoly, then combating that, by attacking whatever mechanism it is by which they are restricting competition to only themselves, would be much easier and more effective than literally trying to go after rich people's money. Very liberal, pro-equality economists have cautioned this very same thing. We did not end the Gilded Age by literally confiscating and redistributing the wealth of the Rockefellers, Morgans, Carnegies, Astors, Vanderbilts, et al. We ended it by breaking up their monopoly power and passing anti-trust laws, and continuously looking to heavily regulate or adjudicate monopoly power problems and anti-competitive business tactics in an ongoing fashion. If we need to modernize some of these regulations, then by all means, let's do it. No I'm not. I am not painting any effort to restore balance as radical fringe lunacy. I am calling the radical fringe ideas for restoring balance "radical fringe lunacy."
  8. Mk. So we can agree that the voting public will often support business interests that align with the economic health of their city or state. Union leaders literally and directly supported Citizens United (despite publicly decrying Citizens United). Liberal homeowners don't like affordable housing anywhere near them, despite allegedly caring about the plight of the poor and homeless. Conservatives in Alaska want their representatives to support big federal spending bills that send money to their state (despite allegedly being anti-federal spending). This isn't all corporate oligarchy. It's people voting in favor of their self interests, or what they think is in their self interests. This can sometimes lead to outcomes that are not great. This isn't an issue of "the corporate oligarchy buying politicians." It's democracy. People try to influence the people who are elected to represent them. And groups of people form interest groups (or just are an interest group unto themselves based on how they vote) can sometimes support government policy that doesn't work well. This takes some of the hot air out of the "corporate plutocracy" rhetoric that far left liberals love to spew.
  9. U.S. Senators and Representatives often proudly support the business interests going on within their own states, and often win support of their state's voters because they defend those interests. The voters themselves often support this representation because if it's effective it strengthens their states' economies. Why else would voters in New York, for example, liberal as they are, repeatedly vote for politicians sympathetic to big banking interests? Why would city governments in California, liberal as they are, repeatedly institute local zoning laws that prevent development of affordable housing? These are issues with plain old Democracy. It's not all a vast corporate oligarchical plutocracy conspiracy of billionaire CEOs.... (trigger word, trigger word, trigger word ad nauseam).
  10. 1) Are you saying it's common practice that corporate boards cut themselves bonus checks? 2) Are you also saying it's common practice for corporate boards to vote to dump pollution in communities where families live, and that this is legal? Don't we pass and enforce laws against this? 3) If labor stood to make money off the decision, then yes I think they would vote to dump pollution in ways that should not be allowed. Hence there should just be environmental laws that prevent this. I've asked you before specifically that if you were a Board unto yourself, how corporate CEO compensation of a fortune 500 company should be structured so as to align it with the company's long-term success. I don't believe you ever answered.
  11. Mmmm, maybe slightly, but not exactly. Exclusive representation usually comes up when someone is complaining about Right To Work and the "freerider problem." Unions could avoid the freerider problem by choosing not to certify as "exclusive representative." Unions could protect themselves from the cost of free-riders if they wanted. But they choose otherwise, and then complain about it. Note: All Democratic candidates for President have shown support for laws that would repeal states' private sector Right To Work laws (including those that have been in place since the 1940s).
  12. How are we on the topic of me and unions in this thread? You admit that unions should be regulated. Warren and Sanders want to dismantle Taft Hartley, which is a major piece of what regulates them. I assume you agree with Warren and Sanders, do you not? I disagree with them, because I think unions should be regulated, like you just said. Why do you agree with Warren and Sanders' labor positions if you think unions "should most definitely be regulated?" 1) You're in the wrong thread. 2) I painstakingly and repeatedly explained the point in that thread, including in very clear and simple terms, and you continue to wildly misrepresent it. That's because you compulsively misrepresent what I say, and then rant about corporate oligarchies and banks and whatever else that has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific legal issue I'm discussing. That's why it goes nowhere and never ends. More misrepresentation. You can't respond to the content, so you spout this sh** over and over. But again, wrong thread.
  13. All the links (regarding Dem candidates) in the OP reference secondary boycotts. That is a big one. The link about Warren and Sanders explains how they apparently want to gut Taft Hartley. It can't be that hard to be specific about who is merely paying lip service to unions. Which one(s)? If I can trust they're lying about the more controversial aspects of their labor platform, it may help me make my decision come November.
  14. It would be cool if the mod(s) could somehow cut and relocate the off-topic infantile flame war that's hijacked this thread to some other place.
  • Create New...