Jump to content
Neomalthusian

France allows unions to hold its entire economy hostage

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

Nothing has ground to a halt.  A temporary disruption of productivity so that people can try to use their leverage to claw back some of the wealth they generate is hardly a catastrophe. 

 

1)  This is public sector.  They're not clawing at rich people's wealth to "get it back."  Pay attention.  These unions are seeking to cripple the public sector infrastructure and services on which the rest of the society relies.  They aren't working to sabotage "the rich," they're working to sabotage their entire society, by crippling the public services it's built on.  The government lets them do this.  Government has the lawmaking power.  The government permits these antics.  That's the bizarre thing.

 

2)  To minimize the sense of disruption here as "no big deal" goes directly against the stated goal of going on strike.  The intent to create maximum disruption is how the unions get their demands met.  If it were a painless, barely-disruptive little thing, it wouldn't work to get unions what they want.  If you actually look at what's being coordinated in France, it's not a tiny little disruption of productivity.  And it's not like these are factor workers producing widgets for profit.  They're public sector workers looking to cripple basic services that the entire country's economy relies on.

 

Quote

It's an interesting news story and in the end deals will be struck and business will resume in earnest.  The gun-to-the-head scenario you're trying to paint here much more aptly describes what Wall Street did to us all in 2008 than these labor protests.

 

No it doesn't.  Your attempts to divert the topic onto Wall Street and act like "Wall Street" was one entity that "did something to the rest of us" in 2008 is extremely misinformative.  There is no one entity called "Wall Street."  It's a catch-all term, and 2008 was a broad system failure involving numerous groups of people who all inadvertently contributed their part.  It was not a coordinated conspiracy to hold the nation hostage until demands were met.

 

When a group of unions can practically shut down the transportation systems on which a country's economy relies, that is a huge deal, and to call that "hostage" is entirely appropriate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neomalthusian said:

No it doesn't.  Your attempts to divert the topic onto Wall Street and act like "Wall Street" was one entity that "did something to the rest of us" in 2008 is extremely misinformative.  There is no one entity called "Wall Street."  It's a catch-all term, and 2008 was a broad system failure involving numerous groups of people who all inadvertently contributed their part.  It was not a coordinated conspiracy to hold the nation hostage until demands were met.

HAHAHAHA!!!

 

Yeah, that's the ticket!  It was an "accident" that the entire political structure is stacked with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup who whitewash everything their pals were doing until it all blew up in our faces...and then THEY all stayed rich and wrote themselves big bonus checks using the bailout money we gave them.  It was all "inadvertent".  That's why Goldman employees were calling the securities they were selling to their clients "dogsh!t" in internal emails as the firm went net short (bigly) against the very securities they were foisting off on unsuspecting customers.

 

It was "inadvertent".  And when it all blew up, none of them had any inkling that they could blackmail the world's governments (not just ours) to pay their debts...or else.  It all just sort of...happened, and they all just sort of....accidentally got even richer than before....and their institutions just sort of....accidentally became larger, more inter-connected, and more powerful than ever..."inadvertently".  Whoooops!  We're sorry!  How were we supposed to know?  Yes, yes, we've been telling you for 20 years that we're much smarter than you and we've got it all covered...but....but...HOW WERE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW???  Now write us a check and cover our losses or we will literally destroy the entire world's economy.

 

DddeeeerrrRRRR!!1   Hi!!!  I'ms stuooopied and I think this Was AlL just un acCCsident from the Poor conFuzed bankers!!!  DdddDDeeEEERRRrrRRR!!!

 

Literally not one thing has ever gone against these motherfvckers, ever threatened their absolute control over our markets and our money, ever reduced in the slightest their grip on the seat of power here and abroad, not ever an inkling of splitting apart the behemoths into something that could actually be legitimately regulated or even grasped from outside...and that's all just a big COINCIDENCE!!

 

WHOOOPS!!!!

 

I've got a bridge on the moon I'd like to sell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who make a fortune because they work really hard and take big risks...

 

...don't deserve their fortunes if they DON'T TAKE RISKS.  If we're going to bail you out when you fail, then you don't get the big bucks for riding the wave when things are going well.  Just get in there and do your best and if you crash and burn our economy, no harm done.  Welfare for Wall Street and brutal free market individualism for everyone else.

 

Fvcking freeloading deadbeat con men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, splunch said:

HAHAHAHA!!!

 

Yeah, that's the ticket!  It was an "accident"

 

You're saying the 2008 financial crisis was a vast, coordinated conspiracy to intentionally crash the global financial system?  That's really what you believe?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

You're saying the 2008 financial crisis was a vast, coordinated conspiracy to intentionally crash the global financial system?  That's really what you believe?

 

You're saying those are my two choices?  Either it was an accident or it was an evil plot to crash the system? 

 

The corruption of our systems is not a coordinated conspiracy with a single end goal.  It's also not "inadvertent".  It's each player motivated by short-sighted greed making moves to tweak the rules so that they can make more profits.  When Citigroup writes legislation and hands it over to its bought-and-paid-for members of Congress, and that text finds its way word for word into legislation at their request, that's not "inadvertent", and it's also not Dr. Evil planning to destroy the economy.  The fortunes that these companies spend "lobbying", aka BRIBING people so that they can grab and run off with another chunk of cash are not "inadvertent".  They KNOW that they are rigging the game so they can skim more off for themselves.  Anyone smart enough to play these games know that the market and the government cannot be corrupted indefinitely without consequences.  They aren't looking for those consequences, they just don't care, because I'm getting mine

 

Is that a coordinated Dr. Evil conspiracy?  No.  It's also not, "Whoa!  Darn it!  We were acting like the good stewards of the economy that we constantly tell people we are, and what a shocker...we've bet 30x our assets on deals we referred to as 'dogsh!t' in our internal emails!  Whoa!  What happened!  I guess we inadvertently corrupted the market!!  How did that happen?  Why, just the other day, I was emailing my friend asking him to tweak LIBOR for me so I could make a huge profit at the expense of everyone not on the inside, and I thought what a great job we're doing in our role!"

 

The fines and felonies are piling up.  These are not inadvertent missteps.  This is greed, pure and simple, corrupting people and making them do stupid things because they think they can get rich right now, and be the last one out the door before margin call.

 

It's not like we've never seen this before.  That's why we had the Glass-Steagall Act.  That's why we had limits on what these institutions could do before.  That's why the leaders of those institutions were conservative, and took their fiduciary responsibility as bankers and investors seriously.  Until they didn't.  When they decided to start playing fast and loose, did they do it because they wanted to destroy the economy?  No.  But they also didn't too much mind if they sold "dogsh!t" to their clients while telling them what a great investment it was.  

 

Inadvertent?  Well, I suppose.  In a manner of speaking.  Corrupt, self-serving, short-sighted, greedy motherfvckers that broke everything and then put us into debt to bail them out?  Most definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, splunch said:

Inadvertent?  Well, I suppose.  In a manner of speaking.

 

OK, good, fine.

 

Now that this topic diversion is out of the way, let's acknowledge that when it comes to this topic, the economic disruption and paralysis from shutting down a nation's public transportation, schools, sanitation, et cetera is a very clearly intentional act.  The negative societal and economic effects of the action are 100% intended.  It's direct, intentional coercion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 3:21 PM, Neomalthusian said:

 

OK, good, fine.

 

Now that this topic diversion is out of the way, let's acknowledge that when it comes to this topic, the economic disruption and paralysis from shutting down a nation's public transportation, schools, sanitation, et cetera is a very clearly intentional act.  The negative societal and economic effects of the action are 100% intended.  It's direct, intentional coercion.

 

I'm not seeing how it's that big of a problem.  Relative to the alternative, which is people just keep rolling over and taking it in the ass, being good soldiers and doing their duty, while their wages and benefits are eroded by people who have their hands on the levers, who are NOT doing their duty and are making decisions behind closed doors for the benefit of themselves and their friends, I'd say that periodically pausing in the relentless pursuit of profit and power to remember that the people who actually do the work need to survive, too, isn't such a big deal.  

 

Just another instance of self-dealing gangsters using right-wing propaganda to try to pull rent out of a system on the backs of people who actually do the work.

 

Good.  People have to live, have to show up every day and do the jobs you depend on.  When people forget that and start to try to sneak out on paying part of the bill that those workers need to live, they have to be reminded.

 

I have never heard of a better, less destructive mechanism for getting that point across than labor unions bargaining collectively or going on strike.  Unchecked, the power of management to corrupt the labor market, play individuals against each other in a brutal race to the bottom, leads to child labor and people getting paid in company scrip for the company store.  People getting screwed can either riot, revolt, or organize and try to act politically, economically, peacefully, to get their point across.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, splunch said:

I'm not seeing how it's that big of a problem.  Relative to the alternative, which is people just keep rolling over and taking it in the ass, being good soldiers and doing their duty, while their wages and benefits are eroded by people who have their hands on the levers, who are NOT doing their duty and are making decisions behind closed doors for the benefit of themselves and their friends, I'd say that periodically pausing in the relentless pursuit of profit and power to remember that the people who actually do the work need to survive, too, isn't such a big deal.  

 

Just another instance of self-dealing gangsters using right-wing propaganda to try to pull rent out of a system on the backs of people who actually do the work.

 

Good.  People have to live, have to show up every day and do the jobs you depend on.  When people forget that and start to try to sneak out on paying part of the bill that those workers need to live, they have to be reminded.

 

I have never heard of a better, less destructive mechanism for getting that point across than labor unions bargaining collectively or going on strike.  Unchecked, the power of management to corrupt the labor market, play individuals against each other in a brutal race to the bottom, leads to child labor and people getting paid in company scrip for the company store.  People getting screwed can either riot, revolt, or organize and try to act politically, economically, peacefully, to get their point across.  

 


This topic is about public sector workers in France.  These people are not “getting it in ass,” they’re not getting screwed, not unable to live on their wages, there is no “rent out of the system,” they’re not having their wages eroded, or any of the things you just said.  


This country has perhaps the most cushy public sector labor standards in the world, and still the unions seek to paralyze the economy any time a decision they don’t like is being contemplated, and still the government allows for these tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Neomalthusian said:


This topic is about public sector workers in France.  These people are not “getting it in ass,” they’re not getting screwed, not unable to live on their wages, there is no “rent out of the system,” they’re not having their wages eroded, or any of the things you just said.  


This country has perhaps the most cushy public sector labor standards in the world, and still the unions seek to paralyze the economy any time a decision they don’t like is being contemplated, and still the government allows for these tactics.

They seek to use their leverage to negotiate more favorable terms for themselves.  Your opinion that they already have enough and should shut up and be happy with their lot is not authoritative and carries almost no water given the one-sidedness of your positions.  When goaded, your abject hatred for all things unions is abundantly clear to all.  Your objections are Utopian and pointless.  Unions are necessary, despite their imperfections and your intellectual arguments against their fairness or righteousness.

 

The right-wing-style gangsters know how to abuse the public sector just like any other group.  They call it "privatization" and it's nothing more or less than funneling public dollars out of public institutions into their friends' hands, watching under-funded public institutions crumble, and then declaring, "Look, see!?  Gubmint doesn't work!"  See:  Kansas or any other right-wing gangster playground where the public coffers were plundered and everyone except the thieves themselves were blamed.

 

Thankfully, Kansans woke up and sent the gangsters packing, and have started to claw their way back to sanity and solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, splunch said:

They seek to use their leverage to negotiate more favorable terms for themselves.  Your opinion that they already have enough and should shut up and be happy with their lot is not authoritative and carries almost no water given the one-sidedness of your positions.

 

That wasn't my opinion, you just put words in my mouth.  The government expressly allows its unions to significantly disrupt its operations and the economy.  Unions only have this "leverage" because the government gives it to them.

 

Quote

Your objections are Utopian and pointless.

 

"My objections are Utopian..." what a bizarre thing to say.

 

Quote

Unions are necessary, despite their imperfections and your intellectual arguments against their fairness or righteousness.

 

You are so blindly and uncritically pro-union that you can't even notice the subject or stay on topic.  Every time unions are involved, you either try to divert the topic onto something else, or you try to dumb the argument down to "unions good" vs. "unions bad." 

 

Public sector unions do not need the legal privilege to strike against their society.  Some classes of public employees cannot strike and yet unions are still happy to represent them.  If public employees absolutely needed to be able to strike, there wouldn't be unionism in public safety, for example.  But there is, which shows that striking is not critically essential for employees.  If the people and the government really didn't want this to happen, it wouldn't.  Government has the ultimately lawmaking authority to just shut this down and not tolerate it anymore.  But they go along with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 11:58 AM, bludog said:

 

This is a clear demonstration of the lengths to which workers must go to make the Fat Cats realize that economic justice must be allowed.  Thank God there are still French men and women with the self-esteem, conviction and courage to demand their fair share of the pie from those who would exploit them.

 

Vive la France !

Economic justice equals getting paid twice what your uneducated, unskilled labor is worth. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeepBreath said:

Economic justice equals getting paid twice what your uneducated, unskilled labor is worth. 😂

 

It is up to labor to organize and seize their rightful share;  Heedless of those who assert their labor is of low worth.   In France, they are doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

It is up to labor to organize and seize their rightful share;  Heedless of those who assert their labor is of low worth.   In France, they are doing just that.

AH A LIBERAL ASSWIPE INCITING VIOLENCE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

It is up to labor to organize and seize their rightful share;  Heedless of those who assert their labor is of low worth.   In France, they are doing just that.

 

It's up to the government and the people to become aware of the fact that they do not have to subject themselves to these tactics.  It doesn't even have to be a subject of negotiation.  They can simply stamp it out with a law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

It's up to the government and the people to become aware of the fact that they do not have to subject themselves to these tactics.  It doesn't even have to be a subject of negotiation.  They can simply stamp it out with a law.  

You always favor anything that will in any way limit the power of unions.  Always.

 

Your objections to unions assume a society where the power and influence of concentrated wealth do not corrupt our governments and our economics.  They do.  The unions must act to counter-balance that effect.  Unions are just like concentrated wealth and large corporations:  they are a necessary imperfect reality.  You only rail against the unions, and when the need for them is explained in terms of them balancing the forces of concentrated wealth, you simply assert that concentrated wealth should just not be allowed to corrupt the marketplace or the government.  You say that should not be allowed, but you spend no energy arguing for ways we might counteract that corrupting influence.  If Amazon pays no federal taxes, or Citigroup tells a legislator what to slip into a bill on their behalf, you argue against pointing that out and say somebody must be screaming about the big bad corporations and banks.  

 

Well, yeah...remember, they shouldn't be allowed to trample our markets and our government...REMEMBER???

 

Oh, no, you only remember to be strict about limiting the influence of concentrated power when that power is in the hands of a union.  Then they should be blocked.  Stamped out.  Unions should be illegal.  Unions are unethical and immoral and must be eradicated.

 

"But they counteract powerful corrupting forces in our economy and government."

 

Yeah, well, those forces shouldn't be corrupting things.  That's a real problem.  Now back to destroying all unions...

 

You're a one-trick pony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

 

It is up to labor to organize and seize their rightful share;  Heedless of those who assert their labor is of low worth.   In France, they are doing just that.

Precisely.

General Motors, Microsoft, and every gas station in this country have the right to set the prices of their products for a maximum benefit.

Workers join unions and stick together to accomplish the same thing.

The French have the right to decide how to run their own country. They do many things better than we do: most cultural events and products, bread and cheese, wine and tree trimming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neomalthusian said:

It's up to the government and the people to become aware of the fact that they do not have to subject themselves to these tactics.  It doesn't even have to be a subject of negotiation.  They can simply stamp it out with a law.  

 

The voice of oppression    ^   ^   ^  never rests. 

 

Enlightened French men and women would not vote for a politician who supported such a  regressive law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, splunch said:

You always favor anything that will in any way limit the power of unions.  Always.

You're a one-trick pony

 

Methinks you've got Mr Malthusian's number:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, splunch said:

You always favor anything that will in any way limit the power of unions.  Always.

 

I favor laws that limit the power of any organization in this way.  No organization should be able to lawfully seek to paralyze the operations of public infrastructure, public utilities, public education, and so forth.  Private companies aren't allowed to hold public services hostage.  Professional associations aren't allowed to do it either.  Nor are organized crime organizations.  It just isn't allowed.  Unions shouldn't be able to do it either.  We regulate interstate commerce for this purpose, so that people can't get in the middle of commerce and shut it down or apply their own taxes to it.  Nobody should be allowed to do this.  And all that's necessary is for the government to say "you're not allowed to do that."  

 

3 hours ago, splunch said:

Your objections to unions assume a society where the power and influence of concentrated wealth do not corrupt our governments and our economics.  They do.

 

I'm not talking about "influence," I'm talking about direct sabotage on public services.  No organization (except labor unions, in some cases) are ever allowed to do this.  

 

3 hours ago, splunch said:

The unions must act to counter-balance that effect.  Unions are just like concentrated wealth and large corporations:  they are a necessary imperfect reality.  You only rail against the unions, and when the need for them is explained in terms of them balancing the forces of concentrated wealth, you simply assert that concentrated wealth should just not be allowed to corrupt the marketplace or the government.

 

I haven't asserted that actually, I'm just trying to keep you on topic.  I am not even really railing against unions, I'm railing against the French government and its people for willfully subjecting itself to these tactics.  It's purely their choice to allow unions to conduct this sabotage on public services.  And it's a very strange choice.  

 

3 hours ago, splunch said:

You say that should not be allowed, but you spend no energy arguing for ways we might counteract that corrupting influence.  If Amazon pays no federal taxes, or Citigroup tells a legislator what to slip into a bill on their behalf, you argue against pointing that out and say somebody must be screaming about the big bad corporations and banks.  

 

Police officers, for example, are not allowed to go on strike, almost ever.  Do you comprehend the reasons why not?  Do you think they should be allowed to go on strike?  Do you see it as an assault on police unions that we don't let them strike?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

The voice of oppression    ^   ^   ^  never rests. 

 

Enlightened French men and women would not vote for a politician who supported such a  regressive law. 

 

If not allowing unions to paralyze public infrastructure is "regressive" in your mind, then this must be your idea of "progress" and "enlightenment."

 

p07x15q1.jpg

2019-12-05-france-strike-05.jpg

22006542-7772093-image-a-1_1575895253746

55b9e48b41c1cb7f5ddeadb0fbdb3a13229f5b9e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 2:28 PM, bludog said:

 

This is a clear demonstration of the lengths to which workers must go to make the Fat Cats realize that economic justice must be allowed.  Thank God there are still French men and women with the self-esteem, conviction and courage to demand their fair share of the pie from those who would exploit them.

 

Vive la France !

While they burn their country to the ground?

Sounds to me like your jealous.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...