Page 1 of 2

The consent of the governed.

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:46 pm
by rubato
Or why labor unions have been more powerful and mutually understood to be beneficial in Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... own-plant/

see link for article.
"... While the details of the arrangement would be ironed out after the election, works councils -- which are elected by all workers in a factory, both blue and white collar, whether or not they belong to the union -- usually help decide things like staffing schedules and working conditions, while the union bargains on wages and benefits. They have the right to review certain types of information about how the company is doing financially, which often means that they're more sympathetic towards management's desire to make cutbacks when times are tough. During the recession, for example, German works councils helped the company reduce hours across the board rather than laying people off, containing unemployment until the economy recovered.

In the early 1990s, Harvard labor law expert Paul C. Weiler interviewed managers about why they valued works councils. One representative executive told him:

There are three major advantages of councils. You're forced to consider in your decision making process the effect on the employees in advance…this avoids costly mistakes. Second, works councils will in the final run support the company. They will take into account the pressing needs of the company more than a trade union can, on the outside. And third, works councils explain and defend certain decisions of the company towards the employees. Once decisions are made, they are easier to implement. ...".
Meanwhile, the usual suspects behave in the usual obstructive way.
"... That doesn't mean, however, that the vote is unopposed. National anti-union groups and the state's Republican leaders are campaigning against the UAW, saying unionization will spread like a contagion through Tennessee's other auto plants. “Then it’s BMW, then it’s Mercedes, then it’s Nissan, hurting the entire Southeast if they get the momentum," said Sen. Bob Corker (R.-Tenn.). ... "
yrs,
rubato

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:49 pm
by Jarlaxle
Are you postwhoring for any particular reason, rube?

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:37 am
by rubato
Europe has used a very different model of labor-management relations since before I became aware of it in the 1970s. There are many things about their model which we could learn and benefit from if we had people smarter than, well, you listening.



yrs,
rubato

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:47 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Well that dig added a lot to the conversation.
Did it give you your daily ego boost?

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:41 pm
by rubato
Someone accustomed to habits of fairmindedness would have observed that the response was merely in-kind, and proportionate.

Apparently it is you who are attending to your emotional needs.

yrs,
rubato

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:51 pm
by dgs49
I have had a lot of communication with European colleagues over the past several years about their professional unions and how they affect employment generally (I'm talking about Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, so may not represent all of Europe).

The poison of our adversarial relationships between "labor" and "management" does not seem to be present over there. The unions ensure that the employees get a reasonably fair shake from management, but part of the picture that cannot be ignored is that employers cannot significantly cut costs by layoffs. The company has to continue paying them close to what they were making while employed, indefinitely. Also, the unions seem willing to work with management to develop and implement changes that promote efficiency, safety, and innovation.

I don't know who is to blame for the adversarial climate in this country, but it is like a cancer that infects almost all companies that are "organized," as well as unionized public sector entities. The UAW election in Tennessee this week could be a HUGE development, depending on how it goes.

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:01 pm
by rubato
Exactly the point. if we can move away from the adversarial relationship which has poisoned labor-management relations in the U.S. and move more towards "workers councils" we would all be better off.

yrs,
rubato

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:39 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
rubato wrote:Someone accustomed to habits of fairmindedness would have observed that the response was merely in-kind, and proportionate.

Apparently it is you who are attending to your emotional needs.

yrs,
rubato
My emotional needs are totally met and I am very content and serene.
I don't need the "tit for tat" for my emotional stability or validation.

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:47 pm
by rubato
Serenity, in your case, provokes you to jump into an exchange not your own to post ill-considered bullshit.

I don't think that is what passes for serenity to a person of even and judicious temperament.

yrs,
rubato

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:16 pm
by Lord Jim
to post ill-considered bullshit.
I don't think I'd be lecturing anyone about posting "ill-considered bullshit" If I were you rube...

That's pretty much your wheelhouse...

As for the topic:

Surprisingly enough, I find myself sort of in agreement with both you and Dave....

I'm not sure I'm happy with the term "Worker's Council" (sounds too much like "People's Committee"; a little too Bolshie sounding for my taste...)

But the concept seems sound...

It makes good business sense to have some modus vivendi for creating an effective relationship between management and labor, in any business enterprise.

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:17 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
I didn't know there was a rule that said others cannot post in exchanges that are not their own.
:shrug

Serenity had nothing to do with why I posted. I very rarely get worked up about anything now-a-days, and definately never get worked up reading/posting on an anonimous forum.
The only thing your post made me was sad, sad that someone has to call into question someone elses intelligence in order to try and make a point.
if we had people smarter than, well, you listening.
This is a put down of the intelligence of the person it was directed at.
To me it seems to be an attempt to boost ones own ego by putting anothers intelligence in question.

I too have done such a thing. I used to put others down in order to make myself appear "better" in some way.
I have since realized it does no such thing. I have found that some people who employ such tactics (myself included) have a low self worth/esteem.

I no longer need to put others down or question their intelligence in order to boost myself as it does not work and I am fine with me just the way I am.
And those I surround myself with (wife, family, friends, some fellow posters here and elsewhere) seem to think the same.

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:24 pm
by Sean
In fairness oldr, Rube's post was in response to an accusation of "postwhoring"...

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:40 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
you are correct and I should have commented on that also.
My bad.
I will correct that error.
Are you postwhoring for any particular reason, rube?
Since when is starting a thread considered "postwhoring"? If one does not wish to comment on the subject, then don't.
Gob starts billions of threads, some just die, others go on for pages. Is he postwhoring by starting so many?

Subjects are thrown out there, some stick, some dont.

Well, I think I screwed up this thread enough.
My sincere apologies to all involved.
You can beat me to a pulp now.
:beat

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:28 pm
by Lord Jim
Oldr, you've got a lot on your plate right now; nobody's going to beat you to a pulp... 8-)

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:00 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
What if I like it? :D

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:20 pm
by Lord Jim
Well then like Kevin Bacon assume the position and say, "please sir may I have another"... :D

Image

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:22 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
You're not my type. :nana

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:49 am
by Econoline
AAANNND...the vote is in. The UAW has been defeated--not by the employer (Volkswagen)...but by the Republican party.
FRI FEB 14, 2014 AT 07:17 PM PST
Republican threats over Volkswagen
union vote have their intended effect

by
Laura Clawson for Daily Kos Labor
Their senator said publicly and repeatedly that if they voted against joining a union, their company would bring more jobs to the region. A state senator said that if they voted for a union, their legislature would vote against funding for jobs expansion. And the threats to Volkswagen workers apparently had their intended effect: The workers voted narrowly against joining the UAW in results just counted.

According to an emailed press release from the UAW:
At the end of voting on Friday, Volkswagen workers voted against joining the union in a vote of 712 to 626. [...]

“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams, who directs the union’s transnational program. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”
If all of your elected officials were saying that you choosing more power in the workplace and better wages and working conditions would mean fewer jobs, wouldn't you think twice? Fear works for Republicans. They use it effectively.
:arg

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:18 pm
by Lord Jim
That seems like a pretty simplistic explanation for what happened, and that the influence here is being grossly exaggerated...

We live in a country where less than half the adult citizens can even name one of their US Senators let alone know or care what they're saying; I think who ever wrote that is projecting their own interest in politics on to others in an inappropriate way. (And of course being led to their conclusion by their biases; they don't want to believe that a majority of the workers could honestly have concluded that this wasn't in their best interests on the merits; they prefer to find some external reason to blame.)

Re: The consent of the governed.

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:12 pm
by rubato
Econoline wrote:AAANNND...the vote is in. The UAW has been defeated--not by the employer (Volkswagen)...but by the Republican party.
FRI FEB 14, 2014 AT 07:17 PM PST
Republican threats over Volkswagen
union vote have their intended effect

by
Laura Clawson for Daily Kos Labor
Their senator said publicly and repeatedly that if they voted against joining a union, their company would bring more jobs to the region. A state senator said that if they voted for a union, their legislature would vote against funding for jobs expansion. And the threats to Volkswagen workers apparently had their intended effect: The workers voted narrowly against joining the UAW in results just counted.

According to an emailed press release from the UAW:
At the end of voting on Friday, Volkswagen workers voted against joining the union in a vote of 712 to 626. [...]

“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” said UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams, who directs the union’s transnational program. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”
If all of your elected officials were saying that you choosing more power in the workplace and better wages and working conditions would mean fewer jobs, wouldn't you think twice? Fear works for Republicans. They use it effectively.
:arg


The threats were severe and only had to sway a few to be successful. Too bad for them. Republicans consistently do the wrong thing every time. Wow.



yrs,
rubato