Would you cross a picket line?

[ols386]

You also explain to me the fact that if my husband doesn't give 100 percent to his job people can be KILLED. The job he had bf this one that he had for over 20 yrs was ranked #3 as the most hazardous place to work in the Tristate area. No one answered that one. My husband gives over 100 percent. I can give countless posts here about insinuating union workers do their least possible work. Also right to work states where unions are weaker the union workers have a higher rate of injury bc they are not given the same protection they need from unions, safety, etc. Safety is a big concern in these jobs so to just assume they do minimal or little is ignorant and not true. You all give all the power to the corporations, live that way, just do it, and see what happens. Trust them to pay you fairly, pay you what you think you are owed, and not fire you for stupid reasons, etc., etc. I'm just so glad it isn't us.

I've worked for a corportion for over 30 years (non-union) and I've always been paid fairly, paid what I am owed, and have never been fired.

There are millions of other people who have done this year after year also, for their entire careers. Not saying that there aren't situations where non-union employees are not treated fairly, but to generalize and make it sound like it's the norm to be treated unfairly as a non-union employee, I think, is an exageration.

 

[Mom2Nick]

I've worked for a corportion for over 30 years (non-union) and I've always been paid fairly, paid what I am owed, and have never been fired.

There are millions of other people who have done this year after year also, for their entire careers. Not saying that there aren't situations where non-union employees are not treated fairly, but to generalize and make it sound like it's the norm to be treated unfairly as a non-union employee, I think, is an exageration.

20 years on the job here.

11 years ago when I had my first child I was sent on maternity leave - paid in full - for 14 weeks. No need to file disability or take any kind of a pay cut.

3 years after that when it was slowly becoming apparent that my child was not typical and needed more care then most children my company's solution was to purchase a computer, set up a phone line in my house and allow me to work from home.

Yup - those rat *******s. If only I had a union representing me so I could be treated fairly and have a voice.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Such selfish tenets increase costs and, in private contexts, reduce long-term shareholder value, while in public contexts, negatively impacts taxpayers. The economy is best served when efficiency is achieved, and that requires that the free market determine who does what for what compensation -- not when the economy is capriciously manipulated by self-centered forces, for their own benefit (i.e., job security).

We all want job security. Nothing justifies some people colluding with each other to threaten their employers to get it, at the expense of their employers, the patrons, and society. No private enterprise, surely, owes job security to anyone, and the manner in which unions assert their insistence on such things is unfair and indefensible. Society owes everyone job security in the same measure, not a certain group more so because they happen to be in a union.

That's ridiculous. I install my own software at work, instead of having IT do it for me. My company still employs people. Everyone is NOT out of work.

Uhhhh but you're making a bleepload less money now, according to your past posts you make less than you did 7 years ago. Could it possibly be envy?? selfishness, lets keep everyone down, we don't need unions, workers don't need a voice, they don't need protection, how dare us do that to the companies, I mean workers actually having protection? a voice? what are they thinking? I mean I don't have it, why should anyone else. Those dang entitlement union workers. Lets not give workers a voice of any kind, the poor executives just need to make a profit, they always treat me fairly, and if they don't I really don't deserve a voice, why should I, I should just be happy I have a job even if I now live in a slum bc every year they paid me less and less so they could keep their profits. I am happy to work over a 40 hour week with no OT pay. Now they even can take away my healthcare bc the cost of that and gas and everything else is so high and we have to pay for this war that costs us 10 billion a month, we all know the unions are the reason! Thank goodness lovely executives we have you, we know you will always treat us fairly bc we have some laws that help us. Or maybe I'm wrong, hmmm.

 

[ols386]

20 years on the job here.

11 years ago when I had my first child I was sent on maternity leave - paid in full - for 14 weeks. No need to file disability or take any kind of a pay cut.

3 years after that when it was slowly becoming apparent that my child was not typical and needed more care then most children my company's solution was to purchase a computer, set up a phone line in my house and allow me to work from home.

Yup - those rat *******s. If only I had a union representing me so I could be treated fairly and have a voice.

Same for me. 12 weeks maternity leave for my first child, paid in full. Same maternity leave time for my second child, and full pay.

There were some women who took an extended maternity leave (like 6mos-year), and they were allowed to come back to work (I don't think they were paid for the entire timeframe, but at least when they were ready to come back to work, they could).

 

[Quiksilvr]

Here it is, you have to go back to see the context to which this was posted between me and Bicker having a conversation about this. Also my point stands about my company outsourcing and not being union. They do it bc they can. It has nothing to do with unions, nothing. You honestly believe your point that companies only do things to their workers to make a profit? Look at what companies have done right now, look at this country right now, look what greed has gotten us. So my point stands that unions are needed more now then ever, if people so want them. We are union and we live pretty well for our area. If we didn't have a union, we would probably have to MOVE. What's to prevent a company from firing someone just before they are ready to retire? This is not about entitlement, it is about a living wage, being treated fairly and having a voice when you have less power, which you do as a worker. I'm just so happy we have a union and honest to gosh I sleep at night with my husband's job. I wouldn't even want to buy a house w/o a union job, I don't know how people do it, especially nowadays. With the cost of this war which has cost this country so much and everything else, its the workers that are going to pay, not the execs, they will do everything to keep their wages the same, get their BONUSES and everything else. Read your quote below.

I agree with this 100%. I have to admit, bicker, that I'm surprised to see this comment from you considering earlier discussions on the now-taboo threads.

After taking some time to read some of these posts, I see something of a distinction in philosophy that I think is a product of upbringing and life experience. The most vocal in favor of unions seem to come from union families or have union jobs and they argue in favor of unions because of things like "protection". Because of their experience with unions, it seems that protection and grievance procedure has created something akin to an entitlement mentality re jobs, compensation, and benefits.

Those who don't have experience with unions seem more prone to say things like: "the company has the right to do what it wants/needs to in order to make a profit." This idea of an entitlement to the job doesn't seem to enter into the equation because it hasn't had a lifetime or two to sink into that family. It's interesting.

I don't know why I'm responding to this because it's clear that you are still refusing to see what I was saying, but here it is anyway.

I said that families who have experience with unions seem to have "something akin to an entitlement mentality re jobs, compensation, and benefits."

I did not say what you keep saying I said. I did not insult your family. Far from it. I pointed out what seems to be a difference in philosophy. I'm not saying that your family takes stuff and doesn't work hard. You're getting stuck on the word "entitlement" and not really thinking about it. You're thinking about that word in the context of entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, welfare, etc., and that is clearly not how I was using the term. It does have a broader meaning than that. My point is that based on my observations, the people who are part of unions (or whose families are part of unions) seem to have a different way of looking at things than people who are not involved with unions. It's this idea that a fair wage and fair benefits can only be achieved via the union and that the union provides this "protection" for the worker, thus the union is necessary.

I'm thinking that using "entitlement" was a bad idea because the word has all of this negative connotation. I wasn't using it negatively. I was just making an observation that I (and several others who posted on this thread) believe had merit.

And re the "you honestly believe that all companies care about is making a profit?"

Of course I believe that. I believe that 100%. Companies were cutting corners and playing accounting games so that they could report profits to Wall Street. That was the whole point. Without certain earnings and profits, executives don't get their bonuses, their stock options are worthless, their restricted stock grants fail to appreciate in value, etc. It's all about profit, whether the profit is illusory or real.

I have to disagree... I don't think your point stands at all.

 

[Quiksilvr]

Actually Quksilver, as you were relating that to me I will reply to the above, looks like you believe and people against unions believe that workers have no right to a voice and a say in your job, and limited rights of any kind. You have that right, but I say good luck to you all, especially with the state of this country and what we have seen done by the higher ups, you are all going to need it.

I think that's where our philosophies diverge. I feel that I do have a voice in my job. I'm treated very well without the assistance of a union organization. I make a ton of money and have great benefits. If I have a problem, I can talk to someone about it without getting fired or getting my head bitten off. If my firm decides they don't need me anymore, then I'll get laid off. I don't feel like the firm is jerking me around by doing that; indeed, the firm is doing what it has to do as a business. I don't begrudge them that. If I was laid off tomorrow would I be upset? Of course! It's not like I want to be laid off. Still, I recognize the firm's right to do what it wants. I sleep just fine at night.

Maybe our philosophies are different because my situation is weird. I'm a fee-earner, so the firm profits directly from my work. I get treated very well because of that. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I was a member of the support staff or something. I'm not saying anything about you in that comment, I'm just saying that practicing law is different from a lot of other jobs.

Now, as far as a "say" in my job goes... do I have any control over whether I make partner or not? Not a lick. The only thing I can do is create good workproduct and work hard. I don't feel like I'm owed any more than that.

 

[Quiksilvr]

[/B]Could it possibly be envy?? selfishness, lets keep everyone down, we don't need unions, workers don't need a voice, they don't need protection, how dare us do that to the companies, I mean workers actually having protection? a voice? what are they thinking? I mean I don't have it, why should anyone else. Those dang entitlement union workers. Lets not give workers a voice of any kind, the poor executives just need to make a profit, they always treat me fairly, and if they don't I really don't deserve a voice, why should I, I should just be happy I have a job even if I now live in a slum bc every year they paid me less and less so they could keep their profits. I am happy to work over a 40 hour week with no OT pay. Now they even can take away my healthcare bc the cost of that and gas and everything else is so high and we have to pay for this war that costs us 10 billion a month, we all know the unions are the reason! Thank goodness lovely executives we have you, we know you will always treat us fairly bc we have some laws that help us. Or maybe I'm wrong, hmmm.

I know this was directed at bicker, but I can respond on my own behalf. I just don't agree that a union is the only way to have a "voice." It sounds like by "voice" you mean someone else to advocate on your behalf (i.e., the union)? Or you mean being able to voice your own concerns? And I'm assuming that by "protection" you mean job protection and wage/benefit protection?

As I mentioned in another post, I feel like I have a voice at my job. I don't live in fear of my superiors. Sometimes they annoy me, but whaddya do?

I'm perfectly willing to live my life without "protection" re my job. I don't need it. I don't lust after it. Trust me, I'm not jealous. I advise these villified high-level executives and their villified corporations. They're actually decent guys. Some of them are too greedy, but most of them aren't that bad. The only thing I might lust after is partnership and the seven-figure income that accompanies it... and even that... well, I dunno. I'm not sure that I want to put in the blood, sweat, and tears that it would take to get there.

Anyway, because of the work I do I'm well-compensated. I managed to get a low-mid six figure job without the protection and help of a union. I went to college and law school and did well there and got me a good job. I guess I just don't see what the union would be offering me that I don't already have.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Anyway, because of the work I do I'm well-compensated. I managed to get a low-mid six figure job without the protection and help of a union. I went to college and law school and did well there and got me a good job. I guess I just don't see what the union would be offering me that I don't already have.

Thats all well and good if you feel you don't need that, but why begrudge it to others? We all know what I wrote is true about many companies and their treatment of workers. It is absolutely fact. I myself make less money than I did 8 years ago. Unions will probably all fade away anyway, outsourcing has ensured that and the loss of all our manufacturing companies here, etc. Here is some interesting info about outsourcing. Outsourcing does not stem from unions it stems from tax breaks and the ability now with a global economy to make more money sending work overseas, paying a worker pennies and many times slave labor for a profit. In your mind, they may not constitute greed, even if it means destroying America and running it into the ground. (Another reason we need to protect our workers.) Others such as myself call it what it is. Read below. Why should they keep their work here when they have tax breaks, etc., when they can hire people for pennies? Tell me why, tell me how we are going to compete with that. Funny thing if you read below, white collar jobs also are now being outsourced.

While low wages are the main reason for outsourcing, one corporate tax break provides an important incentive for the practice. Under U.S. law, companies can indefinitely defer any payment of federal taxes on profits earned overseas. The law states they are to pay taxes on that income only when they return those profits to the United States.

An important new development in outsourcing took place in the late 1990s. American companies began to outsource services. Banks moved some call-center operations, which handled customer queries or marketed bank services, to Ireland, India, and other countries with English-speaking workers. Many telephone companies and computer companies also hired firms in India and other countries to handle their call-center operations.

United States accounting firms now often use accountants in India and the Philippines to prepare tax returns, paying those accountants $4,000 a year, compared with the $60,000 annual salaries earned by many American accountants. Many banks have moved their back-office work to Asia so that lower-wage workers there do the unglamorous work of processing financial transactions. Many insurance companies have also moved back-office work overseas, including jobs that involve processing bills and completing and processing insurance claims.

Some architecture firms have farmed out design and blueprint work to architects in Hungary and India. These architectural firms often ask foreign workers to transform rough sketches sent from the United States into finished designs and to generate drawings based on designs sent by American architects. Foreign architectural firms also perform computer-aided design and drafting, complete work on architectural details, and create legal documents needed for construction work.

American law firms have also begun sending work overseas. This outsourced legal work usually involves having overseas lawyers use computers to do document searches, research various laws, write basic contracts, and prepare paperwork for patent filings.




Finally, many software companies have also outsourced work, especially to the high-tech center of Bangalore, India. Basic software coding, but also more sophisticated software development work, has been sent offshore.

III Reasons for Outsourcing and Offshoring

A Wages

The main reason for outsourcing is savings in labor costs. Garment workers in the United States usually earn $6 to $10 an hour, while garment workers in China and Bangladesh often earn just 25 cents to 50 cents an hour. Workers at factories in the Midwest who make durable goods such as refrigerators often earn $15 an hour, but when those jobs are outsourced to Mexico, the workers there frequently earn just $2 an hour.

Wage differences have also fueled outsourcing in the service sector. In India, in the early 21st century, a chip designer with a master’s degree in electrical engineering and five years’ experience often earns $12,000 a year in a country with a per capita annual income of $350. In the United States a chip designer with those credentials often earns $85,000 a year. In India, the salary of a financial analyst is usually about $12,000 a year while in the United States financial analysts generally earn $85,000 or more a year. These savings are often offset somewhat by greater training needs, higher communication costs, and lesser efficiency in doing business abroad.

B Communications

The surge in offshoring has been made possible by rapid advances in communications technology. Fiber optics and communications satellites have made international phone calls far cheaper, making it economical for businesses to move call-center work from the United States to other countries. The development of the Internet, with its e-mail capabilities and high-speed connections, has also been an important factor in helping many businesses move service operations offshore. For example, the increased bandwidth of high-speed connections makes it easy to send large volumes of scanned documents overseas. Due to the Internet, a financial analyst who studies the performance of hundreds of companies is in a position to do that research just as well in New Delhi as in New York City.

Similarly, advances in videoconferencing have made it easier for executives in the United States to maintain business relationships with contractors, executives, and employees in other countries. Many American companies that want to provide round-the-clock service to customers—as is often the case with computer companies and their help desks—find it desirable to have customer service representatives available in India. By working in the early morning hours, these Indian workers can provide service to Americans in the evening hours. In addition, the development of standardized business software has helped standardize corporate practices and documents, making it easier to pass off work from one country to another.

C Transportation

The outsourcing of manufacturing has been helped by technologies that have reduced transportation costs. More efficient cargo ships, known as container ships because cargo is preloaded into container-like trailers and then placed onboard, are being used. Container ships make freight handling more efficient and cheaper. Goods are being shipped in large metal containers of uniform size that can easily be loaded right onto trucks and train cars. As a result of containerization, 20 times the amount of cargo can be loaded and unloaded per hour, compared with previous decades when goods were usually shipped in different-sized boxes and containers. See also Shipping Industry.

D Trade Agreements

Outsourcing and offshoring have been encouraged by international agreements that call for freer trade. Countries have reduced tariffs and removed protectionist barriers that made it hard for companies to set up communications or financial services operations in other nations. Agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have encouraged outsourcing by protecting foreign investors against economic threats, such as expropriation (government takeover) of their foreign operations. In decades past, some foreign governments angered American and European companies by expropriating their operations, often at a price that was far below the value of the operation.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Actually Quksilver, as you were relating that to me I will reply to the above, looks like you believe and people against unions believe that workers have no right to a voice and a say in your job, and limited rights of any kind. You have that right, but I say good luck to you all, especially with the state of this country and what we have seen done by the higher ups, you are all going to need it.

Really, you need to take a step back, because Quiksilver never related anything to you personally. It was a general discussion.

That said, I have seen no one claim that "workers have no right to a voice ..." Of course workers have a right to a voice, their own voice. I believe it's more equitable for each worker to speak for himself, rather than have a union do it for all of them, since each individual worker has his own different skills, motivators and work ethic.

As far as "a say in your job", everyone has a say in his/her job, union or not. If you like your job, you stay, if you don't you either leave or negotiate something different. The only difference between union and non-union workers here is that the non-union worker negotiates for himself, while the union will do it for the union workers. This can be a plus or minus depending on the person. Personally, I would much prefer to negotiate for myself, precisely because I have a strong work ethic and my employers have always known it. I know they will give me a better package individually than I would get as one of the masses.

And "limited rights of any kind"? Again, no one is advocating for limited rights. We just believe that ALL workers should have the same rights, and current laws are adequate. Union workers do not deserve special rights above and beyond everyone else's.

I've worked for a corportion for over 30 years (non-union) and I've always been paid fairly, paid what I am owed, and have never been fired.

There are millions of other people who have done this year after year also, for their entire careers. Not saying that there aren't situations where non-union employees are not treated fairly, but to generalize and make it sound like it's the norm to be treated unfairly as a non-union employee, I think, is an exageration.

Ditto. 20 years experience in companies of various sizes and ownership structures. I was always treated fairly. Once I was laid off when a newer employee in the same position kept her job, but you know what? She was better at it than I was! It stung a little at the time, but it was absolutely the right decision.

I think that's where our philosophies diverge. I feel that I do have a voice in my job. I'm treated very well without the assistance of a union organization. I make a ton of money and have great benefits. If I have a problem, I can talk to someone about it without getting fired or getting my head bitten off. If my firm decides they don't need me anymore, then I'll get laid off. I don't feel like the firm is jerking me around by doing that; indeed, the firm is doing what it has to do as a business. I don't begrudge them that. If I was laid off tomorrow would I be upset? Of course! It's not like I want to be laid off. Still, I recognize the firm's right to do what it wants. I sleep just fine at night.

Maybe our philosophies are different because my situation is weird. I'm a fee-earner, so the firm profits directly from my work. I get treated very well because of that. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I was a member of the support staff or something. I'm not saying anything about you in that comment, I'm just saying that practicing law is different from a lot of other jobs.

Now, as far as a "say" in my job goes... do I have any control over whether I make partner or not? Not a lick. The only thing I can do is create good workproduct and work hard. I don't feel like I'm owed any more than that.

I've always been part of a cost center, but I completely agree with you. Always been treated fairly.

 

[daughtersrus]

I said that families who have experience with unions seem to have "something akin to an entitlement mentality re jobs, compensation, and benefits."

If that is true, maybe it's because their family members were in jobs that are not protected under the Dept of Labor laws and needed the negotiating power of a union to give them the same benefits that others get without a union under the law.

 

[drag n' fly]

To the OP. I have a union representing me. I have never crossed a picket line and nor will I ever

 

[Magic Mom]

Again if u are one of the lucky ones that are treated fairly and don't want a union, that's fine. Don't begrudge others their rights and also say things about unions that are not true as you are and have been, you are not in a union and have never been I guarantee, nor say they are lazy, do their least, etc.

So then, I take it you support right to work state laws.

 

[CowboyCO]

If I needed work to support my family and that was what I could find, then YES, I would PROUDLY cross the picket line.

My first responsibility is to my family, not somebody else's union.

 

[hornedfrog]

Why is that? Shouldn't the union technicians also be getting training if the company is expecting them to do their job properly?

Basically 2 reasons: 1) to make sure they are 'caught up' with current procedures and can take over the job seamlessly and 2) because they can give them lessons and teachings in an less-structured, free-communication type style...that is impossible to conduct in a union environment.

 

[hornedfrog]

Maybe it's the unlimited forced overtime even when not a time of emergency? Working 22 hours in a day and being reprimanded when you leave to go home to sleep might not be something the union workers are interested in doing.

Maybe it's being forced to carry and respond to a pager for two weeks out of a month depending on your location and what the employment situation is at said location, at no additional pay? No weekends away, no nights out, not even a drink with dinner. You must respond within a certain number of hours (4) and must be sober to do it.

Or maybe it could be the .5% wage increase that would be paid in a one time payment, not added to the base salary, so next year your base salary doesn't go up, and maybe the year after that and after that.

Whether you want to work like that is fine, but I suspect if employees weren't hired under these conditions they might not be amenable to such changes.

If someone worked for 40 years and was promised health care and a pension for the forty years while earning less than they could have, only to have it taken away when they retired, maybe that is something the current workers are looking out for.

I doubt very much the strike is over one single issue, particularly health care payment.

Having said all that, if a strike has an issue of unlimited forced overtime, I'd never cross the line.

Umm...none of these. Perhaps the wage increase (because NOTHING has been agreed upon other than the fact that as a manager I get 0% of NOTHING for the foreseeable future, as do many who are lucky enough to have a job in this economy). I cannot predict what will happen to retirees. I was hired in a time when pension was a promise...in fact it is STILL a promise...do I count on it?? Do I figure it into my retirement?? Absolutely not! I would be a fool.
There is no forced overtime like what you are describing.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Just a little info from Victoria Secret's which I am guilty of owning some of, I just paid over $40 for a bra and have others, some manufactured in China and others in Jordan/Bangladesh. Look at what I posted above with what they pay workers there. Sure we have labor laws here to prevent such outrage, but it shows their mindset, it shows they way they think and operate, if they can use these sweatshops and bleep you in any way, they absolutely WILL! It is all about the money. I don't think I'll buy another now.


Jonathan Tasini| BIO | I'M A FAN OF THIS BLOGGER
Victoria's Secret, Slave Labor And So-Called "Free Trade"
Posted November 27, 2007 | 09:56 AM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Cafta, Class Warfare, Clinton CAFTA, DK Garments, Free Trade, Guest Workers, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Jordan, Labor Exploitation, Leslie Wexner, Limited Brands, National Labor Committee, US Jordan Free Trade Agreement, Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, Victoria's Secret Sweatshop, Victorias Secret, Breaking Business News



When you slip on your Victoria's Secret garb, remember this: it comes to you partly due to the wonders of so-called "free trade." And, in particular, that little Victoria Secret garment (I guess "little" is redundant in this context) may even hail from Jordan--which was supposed to be the poster child for how one forges the "right" kind of so-called "free trade" deal. But, instead, Victoria Secret exposes the exact fallacy of so-called "free trade."

My friends at the National Labor Committee have just released a report on some appalling conditions at Victoria Secret production facilities in Jordan:

D.K. Garments is a subcontract factory with 150 foreign guest workers (135 from Bangladesh and 15 from Sri Lanka), which has been producing Victoria's Secret garments for the last year. None of the workers have been provided their necessary residency permits, without which they cannot venture outside the industrial park without fear of being stopped by the police and perhaps imprisoned for lack of proper documents. Email
Print

Be the First to Submit
This Story to DiggBuzz up!The Victoria's Secret workers toil 14 to 15 hours a day, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, receiving on average one day off every three or four months. All overtime is mandatory, and workers are routinely at the factory 98 to 105 hours a week while toiling 89 to 96 hours. Treatment is very rough, as managers and supervisors scream at the foreign guest workers to move faster to complete their high production goals.

Workers who fall behind on their production goals, or who make even a minor error, can be slapped and beaten. Despite being forced to work five or more overtime hours a day, the workers are routinely shortchanged on their legal overtime pay, being cheated of up to $18.48 each week in wages due them. While this might not seem like a great deal of money, to these poor workers it is the equivalent of losing three regular days' wages each week.

Workers are allowed just 3.3 minutes to sew each $14 Victoria's Secret women's bikini, for which they are paid four cents. The workers' wages amount to less than 3/10ths of one percent of the $14 retail price of the Victoria's Secret bikini



And when workers protested a speed up demand? Management had six of the workers arrested. A strike is under way:

The workers begged management to free their unjustly imprisoned friends and co-workers. Management refused and the workers stopped working at 10:30 a.m. on November 12. The strike continues. The owner of the factory is now threatening to have all the guest workers forcibly deported back to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The owner says food and water will be cut off and following that, the workers will be forcibly removed from the dorms.
The workers paid anywhere from $1,500 to over $3,000 to purchase three-year work contracts in Jordan--an enormous amount of money in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Workers had to go deeply into debt, borrowing the money on the informal market, often at five to ten percent interest per month, If the workers are deported, they will never be able to pay off their debts, and they and their families will be ruined.



This is nothing new. The National Labor Committee has been documenting slave-like conditions in Jordan for some time.

The larger point here is this. The U.S.-Jordan so-called "free trade" agreement was held up as the model deal. It was approved by a voice vote in the Senate in 2001--with virtually no Democratic opposition. When Sen. Hillary Clinton announced her decision to vote against the so-called "free trade" called CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreements), she said, in a statement:


The most problematic elements are its labor provisions which retreat from advances made in the late 1990s and that culminated in the labor provisions of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade agreement included internationally recognized enforceable labor standards in the text of the agreement.

And...

The Chile, Australia and Singapore free trade agreements, which I supported, contained similar "enforce your own law" labor provisions to DR-CAFTA, but as I noted when I voted for these agreements, I was greatly disturbed by these provisions' departure from the labor rights standards negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In the end, I supported these agreements despite these concerns because I believed the agreements would not harm the average working person in those nations and, thus, the flawed labor provisions did not outweigh the benefits offered by the agreements.
This is not intended to find fault with Sen Clinton alone; then-Senator John Edwards also supported the agreement and you can find many other Democratic senators making similar supporting statements. They all held to the same general belief that so-called "free trade" deals could be "improved" with provisions inserted on labor and the environment.

The problem is that these deals, as I've pointed out before, are primarily about protecting the rights of capital. You can never hope to enforce labor rights (or for that matter environmental protections) under a regime that is focused on profit first, and community second. It will not happen. And all the statements to the contrary are just rubbish. Why we would pretend that labor rights can be enforced as an after-thought, as a secondary issue, in countries around the world--when we can't even enforce basic labor rights here (such as safety and health regulations) because they are subject to politics and the free reign of the so-called "free market"--exposes the true fallacy of so-called "free trade."

In fact, once the so-called "free trade" deal was signed, Jordan attracted a huge number of sweatshop operations that were thrilled to operate in a zone from which they could export to the U.S. under a so-called "free trade" regime. And so you end up with scores of factories like the Victoria Secret operation.

You can do this. Write to Leslie Wexner, the CEO of Limited Brands, which puts out Victoria Secret clothing, and protest the treatment of the workers in Jordan:

Leslie Wexner, CEO
Limited Brands Inc.
3 Limited Pkwy.
Columbus, Ohio 43230
United States


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/victorias-secret-slave-_b_74261.html

 

[hornedfrog]

So then, I take it you support right to work state laws.

Want to make sure this doesn't go unnoticed/ignored like so much else has been.

 

[disneystacy]

I bet the families of the laid off union Big 3 workers thought they would always have a job as well, until they didn't anymore.
If a company goes under it takes everyone with them, union or non union.
It seems some people are more loyal to the union than the actual company that cuts their paycheck. Its a shame really.

 

[bicker]

Uhhhh but you're making a bleepload less money now, according to your past posts you make less than you did 7 years ago.

No I don't. Read my messages again clearly. I have been restored to my original salary.

Could it possibly be envy??

Not even a little. It is specifically a strong righteous feeling that what you advocate is actually unfair and should therefore be illegal. Not envy at all.

selfishness, lets keep everyone down, we don't need unions, workers don't need a voice, they don't need protection, how dare us do that to the companies, I mean workers actually having protection? a voice? what are they thinking?

Sarcasm isn't permitted on the DIS (or do rules here not apply to you?)

I mean I don't have it, why should anyone else.

I have it. That's the point. It doesn't mean I get to collude with others against my employer. It means I get to go into my boss and ask for a raise (or in my case, to have my salary restored). It also means that my boss can say no for seven years. The actual end-result is a matter of the value I provide, not the manipulation I am able to apply through collusion with others. My power -- my voice -- as an employee is based on my skills and contributions, not based on paying dues to a "legal conspiracy".

The rest of your sarcasm omitted. I don't understand why you think you are entitled to ignore the rules here.

 

[bicker]

Thats all well and good if you feel you don't need that, but why begrudge it to others?

That is like asking why people object to others stealing, assuming that there was a law in place that excused a certain set of people from the laws against stealing, as, in this case, there are laws in place to excused unionists from laws against criminal conspiracy for colluding to manipulate the labor market.

Also, as consumers and/or taxpayers, it costs us money. If people want an advantage, why not get that advantage through merit and good works, instead of what unions do?

We all know what I wrote is true about many companies and their treatment of workers. It is absolutely fact.

Very little of what you've posted about workers is anything close to a balanced portrayal of employment in the United States. In your defense of the unfair manipulative practices of unionists, you've applied a healthy amount of manipulation yourself. What you seem to forget is that the vast majority of us actually are workers in the United States, so we know that what you're claiming is utterly false.

You can fill pages and pages with rhetoric, but you cannot defend indefensible practices with words.