tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post2793026577552761617..comments2023-12-20T04:18:41.617-06:00Comments on The Hunting of the Snark: A Fairy TaleSusan of Texashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-8319568449496864902011-04-26T13:41:49.411-05:002011-04-26T13:41:49.411-05:00Oh. You're the pro-free-trade Myles from Matt...Oh. You're the pro-free-trade Myles from MattY and CT. That makes sense now. <br /><br />No, it's important not to succumb to seductive "comparative advantages" thinking and actually keep actual productive work inside a country.Mandoshttp://politblogo.typepad.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-18017254678411403582011-04-25T09:11:26.524-05:002011-04-25T09:11:26.524-05:00I cleaned out the spam filter and got rid of Roofi...I cleaned out the spam filter and got rid of Roofing.Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-74540749178398324602011-04-25T03:49:43.923-05:002011-04-25T03:49:43.923-05:00Anyways, apologies: looks like no decision has bee...Anyways, apologies: looks like no decision has been made, only the process has been initiated by NLRB's general counsel.<br /><br />If convention is followed, this should end with a monetary settlement, at which point a large sum of money is transferred from Boeing to its union to the satisfaction of both parties. Everybody goes home happy.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-84053264051650432822011-04-25T03:47:42.849-05:002011-04-25T03:47:42.849-05:00@KWillow: Atlanta Roofing is a spammer. The link i...@KWillow: Atlanta Roofing is a spammer. The link is to a roofing site. It's meant to advertise roofing services. In Atlanta.<br /><br />I guess it passed the Turing test.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-73472190511603792802011-04-24T14:26:23.666-05:002011-04-24T14:26:23.666-05:00By the way, given that the South Carolina plant co...By the way, given that the South Carolina plant cost $2-billion, abandoning it would cause far more economic destruction than properly compensating the Puget Sound workers would.<br /><br />I want to see this go to the Supreme Court (if it is subject to judicial review). I want to see Obama stand up and try to justify his NLRB appointees turning a $2-billion factory into wasteland instead of making Boeing pay generous and fair compensation. This is not how liberal democracy works.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-14349471592985837482011-04-24T14:04:55.653-05:002011-04-24T14:04:55.653-05:00Actually, this is even more surreal than I thought...Actually, this is even more surreal than I thought. The union's numbers in Puget Sound actually <i>increased</i> by 2,000.<br /><br />Get a settlement, folk. You have my full sympathies in extracting the maximum settlement out of Boeing.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-66060697810095565092011-04-24T12:57:31.177-05:002011-04-24T12:57:31.177-05:00What I am saying is that Boeing's union should...What I am saying is that Boeing's union should come up with a figure, and say: "you want to move? Fine. In return, you will compensate each worker X dollars depending on age, experience, etc. You will put X amount into the pension fund, etc."<br /><br />X, in Boeing's case, being probably well into the low six figures per worker. And I think Boeing, faced with a non-monetary problem like this, would actually pay up.<br /><br />But it shouldn't drag things on. We have a common-law system explicitly with courts of equity (chancery courts). <i>Use</i> them.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-85785106301460480502011-04-24T12:53:22.856-05:002011-04-24T12:53:22.856-05:00Again: the problem is that the system in the U.S. ...Again: the problem is that the system in the U.S. doesn't demand that companies pay wronged workers whole. It should demand that companies make the workers whole by paying compensation, whether for outsourcing or whatever. The figures should go into the high five figures and six figures. It should demand that companies <i>pay greater compensation.</i><br /><br />But what it should <i>not</i> do is keep untenable, unsatisfactory situations going. That is just misery.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-23673392892495950332011-04-24T12:49:17.946-05:002011-04-24T12:49:17.946-05:00Comparing this to any individual having a romantic...<i>Comparing this to any individual having a romantic fling and then saying "This isn't working out" and being able to just leave it at that is absurd.</i><br /><br />Yes, that's why we have equity provisions in our legal system; to <i>make the wronged party whole</i>. Again: <b>massive compensation. Massive Compensation. Massive Compensation.</b> In this case, by <i>compensating</i> them. If you want to me to sign up for companies to compensate their workers <i>more</i>, I'll do so before you can blink.<br /><br />The problem here is that Boeing has a non-monetary problem that it genuinely is unable to solve (strikes every 3 or 4 years). It shouldn't be having this problem at all (because this is aerospace, and aerospace pays efficiency wages), but it does. Boeing's job is to make planes, not figure out the world's best labour relations methods.<br /><br />If it can't solve the problem, it should pay the appropriate <i>compensation</i> and get out. This <i>isn't something Boeing can solve by paying the union more money</i> (which it almost certainly would if it could). The whole point of having a free economy is so that people and organization aren't tied up in hopeless situations. Again, <i><b>pay the compensation. And get out.</b></i> Make it $100,000 per worker, even. But get out.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-19096292346135557212011-04-24T11:48:54.785-05:002011-04-24T11:48:54.785-05:00That's what no-fault divorces are partially fo...<i>That's what no-fault divorces are partially for.</i><br /><br />I wasn't referring to divorce at all. Was my point. I was <i>satirizing</i> your characterization of corporations as free to brush off any employee in the same way that you'd break up with a casual girlfriend or boyfriend, "sorry this isn't working out", which didn't sound much like the long protracted process that divorce is.<br /><br />I was possibly not satirizing it very <i>well</i>, since you don't seem to have gotten it, but the point more spelled out is that some of us don't see corporations as individuals deserving of all the same rights and considerations of any other single human being.<br /><br />Yes, using someone for your benefit and then discarding the person with a bunch of seemingly generous but actually self-serving bullshit explanations is not illegal, though it's also not very admirable. <br /><br />Despite what many people seemed to think, the Supreme Court of the US did not rule that corporations are human beings, only that their spending money to support political campaigns is free speech in much the same way that any non-profit group spending money in the same way would be. There are those who dispute all this and that's another story, but the point is that the idea that a corporation is just like a person and that you can thus draw comparisons like yours above accordingly is utterly wrong. <br /><br />Corporations make profits partly by taking advantage of a wide range of benefits from the government, as someone pointed out already above. In keeping with this they're bound by various regulations about employees just as they are about consumer protection and so on, all of which they accept as a trade off to make the money.<br /><br />Comparing this to any individual having a romantic fling and then saying "This isn't working out" and being able to just leave it at that is absurd. <br /><br />The latter is bound by virtually no rules or restrictions in such a case, the former is an entirely different animal.UncertaintyVicePrincipalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-34921198338929433262011-04-24T11:24:13.021-05:002011-04-24T11:24:13.021-05:00The picture I was painting wasn't of a no-faul...<i>The picture I was painting wasn't of a no-fault divorce, it was of someone sleeping around and dumping people using the classic disingenuous excuses for doing so to make himself feel less responsible or guilty.</i><br /><br />That's what no-fault divorces are partially <i>for</i>. No-fault divorces are open to people who sleep around just as well as it is to people who don't. Which is why I support to unions in getting all appropriate compensation: Boeing better make those matrimony payments, guys. The severance payments better be <i>huge</i>. But that's not an argument for sticking together; that's an argument for compensating to make the union <i>whole</i>.<br /><br />(By the way, Boeing's situation is really weird. Usually, a company that pays efficiency wages (wages and conditions at which people are not inclined to quit or strike, and are happy to be maximally productive) are not subject to strikes, and aerospace is a classic case of an efficiency-wage industry. So either it has an irrational union or it's doing something else wrong; in either case, <i>pay the compensation and get out</i>. Don't stick around.<br /><br />The whole <i>point</i> of Boeing paying Boeing-level wages partially involves strikes not happening. If it has a strike every 3 or 4 years, then it's <i>doing it wrong</i>.)Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-8920659687304217552011-04-24T08:21:45.631-05:002011-04-24T08:21:45.631-05:00I don't see why this is a bad parallel at all....<i>I don't see why this is a bad parallel at all.</i><br /><br />The picture I was painting wasn't of a no-fault divorce, it was of someone sleeping around and dumping people using the classic disingenuous excuses for doing so to make himself feel less responsible or guilty.<br /><br />Companies used to pretty much treat employees this way at will: "Sorry I found someone better (cheaper, whatever) so I'm dumping you and hiring her." Until workers started banding together and saying oh no you're not, you're going to treat us all decently or you'll have no workers.UncertaintyVicePrincipalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-15072809436311514252011-04-24T00:53:55.464-05:002011-04-24T00:53:55.464-05:00BTW:
Actually, you are wrong. The owners license t...BTW:<br /><i>Actually, you are wrong. The owners license their business from the government. The government offers bankruptcy protection, legal services, security and other services. In return, the business agrees to abide by certain rules, including fair labor standards.</i><br /><br />I think you'll notice that I said "place", not "business". My premise is more the right of telling people to get off one's lawn than anything about nebulous businesses. Property ownership might or might not involve labour and hiring; in this case the property-owner can exclude others from entering its property.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-79904347238564492772011-04-24T00:44:53.022-05:002011-04-24T00:44:53.022-05:00The answer is no. This is clearly established in t...<i>The answer is no. This is clearly established in the National Labor Relations Act as well as judicial precedent, including the WalMart case I cited.</i><br /><br />Sorry, can't give you that. I am, of course, arguing for the right to shut down a part of one's business (for surely free enterprise includes the right to end as well as start businesses). The question here is whether the company is actually trying to do anything, in the abstract, more than what I am arguing; it hasn't actually closed anything down. It has merely <i>built, additionally</i> a plant in South Carolina. Its union is suing because of the <i>risk</i> this might allow the company to shut the original location down. So it won't allow the company to produce anything in South Carolina whatsoever, even when there's no <i>credible</i> indication that it would materially affect production in the original plant (legally speaking, "stuff executives say on conference calls" have no real-world force, while "stuff you put on investor prospectuses and SEC filings" do, because the latter is <i>what you actually use to persuade people to invest in your business</i>. Boeing most certainly did not do the latter. Executives go to jail if they lie on prospectuses, so usually the latter is privileged over the former when there's a discrepancy.)<br /><br />The problem with the union argument is that it's so meta and circumstantial as to require completely carved-in-stone obligations to keep a place open to start with. There is no such requirement, not anywhere in advanced English-speaking countries. Practically speaking, Boeing <i>most certainly will not move production wholesale to South Carolina</i>; it is logistically impossible given its unique circumstantial, even were it legally possible.<br /><br />The reason I oriented the argument around whether businesses can close down is because that's the mirror image of whether it can expand where it wants, rather than where the union prefers. It's more interesting to argue shut-down than expansion because that's the part most usually ignored in American boosterism about free enterprise. You are essentially saying no to both those things, and I think your analogy is inaccurate.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-22491420267265174612011-04-23T23:25:18.556-05:002011-04-23T23:25:18.556-05:00>> but an entirely diff. principle applies: ...>> <i>but an entirely diff. principle applies: the employers own the place.</i><br /><br />Actually, you are wrong. The owners license their business from the government. The government offers bankruptcy protection, legal services, security and other services. In return, the business agrees to abide by certain rules, including fair labor standards.<br /><br />>> <i>Again: the question here is does a company have the right to shut down part of its own operations. </i><br /><br />No. It isn't. The question is does a company have the right to shut down part of its own operations specifically to prevent its workers from accessing their legal rights? <br /><br />The answer is no. This is clearly established in the National Labor Relations Act as well as judicial precedent, including the WalMart case I cited.<br /><br />As I said, you are arguing in bad faith.Syznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-9051651139870343312011-04-23T22:37:31.722-05:002011-04-23T22:37:31.722-05:00"Every time we looked around-
-There he was, ...<i>"Every time we looked around-<br />-There he was, that hairy hound<br />From Budapest!<br /><br />Never leaving us alone!<br />Never have I ever known<br />A ruder pest!"</i><br /><br />Henry Higgens wonderful takedown of <i>His</i> Troll.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03176801494652946278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-47007626226865211172011-04-23T21:56:26.953-05:002011-04-23T21:56:26.953-05:00That's the capitalist system, for better--and ...<i>That's the capitalist system, for better--and there is better--and for worse (and there is worse).</i><br /><br />I suggest that if your frame of reference isn't "what can be done under capitalism" but "something better," then we aren't really on the same page here. I'm sure there are better systems than capitalism, but I honestly don't see how that's relevant.<br /><br /><i>Yes, they are. But to disparage or argue against their rights to unionize, and to have that right protected by law, is to remove the velvet glove and expose the iron fist, and to abandon the romantic metaphor of equal power between two parties.</i><br /><br />Again: the question here is does a company have the right to shut down part of its own operations. Unions deserve a great deal of rights and accommodation, but strategic corporate decisions about economic allocation really isn't one of them. Unless you can convince the American <i>polis</i>, as it were, to sign up for social democracy that discussion is completely moot.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-69857257900951436212011-04-23T21:28:07.821-05:002011-04-23T21:28:07.821-05:00A company and its employees (possibly unionised, p...<i>A company and its employees (possibly unionised, possibly not) have a relationship. </i><br /><br />Isn't it romantic. Except the owners of the means of pr-- Oh, wait, let's instead call them, "the employers" hold hostage, in the form of jobs, every person's ability to survive. That's the capitalist system, for better--and there is better--and for worse (and there is worse).<br /><br />Pretending that both sides of the relationship have equal power is disingenuous at best. True, owners "take the risk" (to the extent that they really do) in creating the company and the jobs. But workers have at stake their physical survival.<br /><br />"They are free to look for other jobs." Yes, they are. But to disparage or argue against their rights to unionize, and to have that right protected by law, is to remove the velvet glove and expose the iron fist, and to abandon the romantic metaphor of equal power between two parties.<br /><br />In which case, fine. Admit it. Admit your sympathies are with the more powerful side of the unequal power distribution. But don't pretend, in advocating for the owners, that you're a fan of equality of opportunity and just want to assure that the owners get their "fair" share.Mr. Wonderfulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-79542751209498722082011-04-23T21:23:31.819-05:002011-04-23T21:23:31.819-05:00To clarify, I don't really object to most labo...To clarify, I don't really object to most labour techniques, except when they verge on serious legislative coercion. I actually don't even oppose card check (euphemism: EFCA) that much anymore, although the principle is surely retarded (if you want people to be sympathetic, demand that the vote be held <i>immediately</i> (as in, within 48 hours) and without <i>any interference from management <b>whatsoever</b></i>, but don't make the creepy demand that we don't actually need a secret vote, even if just as a <i>symbolic</i> exercise).<br /><br />EFCA was honestly some of worst union messaging I have ever seen. They attached what was 95% reasonable, arguable stuff to a 5% bit that was probably unconstitutional <i>anyway</i>.<br /><br />And no, GM's problems can't be blamed on big labour, <i>but</i> we don't actually need causality here: it can easily be argued that had GM had management that was competent enough to not tank the company, the same management also wouldn't have conceded so much ground to the union, so that the sort of stuff (work rules, super generous pension bennies, etc.) the union spent all its time protecting wouldn't have existed in the first place. Kudos to the union for winning so much for its members, but the legal system is quite robust in protecting contracts signed with gullible/nearsighted idiots who have the legal power to sign on the dotted line.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-32593632293377269192011-04-23T21:06:46.491-05:002011-04-23T21:06:46.491-05:00In your tortured worldview, closed shop is harmful...<i>In your tortured worldview, closed shop is harmful when it is employee directed but a wondrous display of freedom when employer directed.</i><br /><br />@Syz: I'm actually not sure what you are referring to by "employer lockouts." I think you are talking about preventing people from working and without pay.<br /><br />I think I know what you are getting at (that just as unions can't have the place to themselves, nor can employers), but an entirely diff. principle applies: the employers <i>own</i> the place.<br /><br />In any case, I better retract the point about closed shop. I worked in a closed shop one summer. No objections to it, really, but secondary picketing is problematic.<br /><br /><i>And maybe some</i><br /><br />I don't see why this is a bad parallel at all. A company and its employees (possibly unionised, possibly not) have a relationship. Any one party should be able to choose to dissolve that relationship, as a <i>generalized</i> principle, with lots of caveats (no discrimination, fair compensation, the company pay for any externality or subsidy that it received for free in the first place for providing employment). After all, our society isn't exactly going to do away with no-fault divorce.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-160841905490308682011-04-23T19:39:27.013-05:002011-04-23T19:39:27.013-05:00@Myles:
Dumb people can inadvertently stumble on t...@Myles:<br /><i>Dumb people can inadvertently stumble on to relevant points, despite themselves.</i><br />In the same way, a stopped clock will be right twice a day. Do you consult stopped clocks when you want to know what time it is?Left Coast Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-17407298747171018392011-04-23T18:18:56.105-05:002011-04-23T18:18:56.105-05:00"My basic feeling here, to be completely hone...<i>"My basic feeling here, to be completely honest, is that a company should be allowed to say: "look, I have nothing against you, and it's not your fault, but I don't want to keep going on like this. We're done."</i><br /><br />Needs moar: "It's not you, it's me."<br /><br />And maybe some: "I just need some time to get my head together, it's nothing that's wrong with you."<br /><br />Then to finish: "The others don't mean anything, but the fact that there <i>were</i> others just made me feel so <i>guilty</i>. I just don't want to do this to <i>you</i> anymore."<br /><br />There.UncertaintyVicePrincipalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-78582655498211498812011-04-23T17:57:00.859-05:002011-04-23T17:57:00.859-05:00Bulletin to Libertarians: "The government&quo...Bulletin to Libertarians: "The government" making decisions about how people conduct themselves in society <i>is</i> "the people" speaking. <br /><br />Big people, little people, any people, in theory at least.<br /><br />If it's only protecting big (powerful) people, then that's a corruption of our idea of government, not a feature. We started <i>somewhat</i> more in that vein with mainly landowners being considered and so on, but there have been a few tweaks since then.<br /><br />Unions are people acting collectively, so is government, and so are corporations. None of those collections of people should get to ride roughshod over the other collections.UncertaintyVicePrincipalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-36607014153307754432011-04-23T17:33:10.671-05:002011-04-23T17:33:10.671-05:00Myles, you are actually proving my point. You decr...Myles, you are actually proving my point. You decry "closed shop" as a bullying tactic, yet you are completely in favor of "employer lockouts." In your tortured worldview, closed shop is harmful when it is employee directed but a wondrous display of freedom when employer directed.<br /><br />You really have no business telling me how to argue considering you routinely argue in bad faith.Syznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-90849139836439770372011-04-23T16:20:35.449-05:002011-04-23T16:20:35.449-05:00I see no reason why Boeing's CEO or Board Memb...I see no reason why Boeing's CEO or Board Members should be allowed to ruin the lives of their employes, or an entire coummunity or even an entire State, just so <i>They</i> (the Bosses) can get an even bigger bonus (Say $15 million instead of "only" $10 million) at the end of the year.<br /><br />If the company was actually struggling <i>due to labor costs</i>, which is seldom the case, the employes union's are usually willing to compromise on benefits & pay. But in most cases the actions of the Owners and Bosses are dictated by straight-forward all consuming GREED. <br /><br />Why should Mr. Jones the worker lose his job and home -and whole towns be destroyed- just so Mr. BigShot can buy another yacht or Lear Jet? Please, <i>don't</i> tell me it is "Mr. BigShot's a producer and deserves every million of his hard-earned money! Mr. BigShot doesn't work <i>one tenth</i> as hard as Mr. Jones. He just able to grab as much as the profit Mr. Jones created as he can. The real leeches and parasites are the Bosses.<br /><br />In real life John Galt probably stole the idea for his Static Electricity Machine (god, what an infintile notion)from someone else, borrowed money to pay (very little) to others to build it, then grabbed the machine and ran & hid. Probably never paid off his loan- instead the Worker's penision fund was raided to pay the Bankers.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03176801494652946278noreply@blogger.com