Wisconsin in Context

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Corporations are just as big a leech as unions. Many governments grant contracts without competing bids.

Not too sure where you are, but that's not usually the case.

Actually government contracts are quite serious in the way they are written and the expectations that come with them. The amount a company gets paid is often based not only on completion time, but also quality of work in said completion time as well. It's not easy at all to win that bid and many a times stat governments will use outside of their own state contractors to do the work as they are willing to do it for less money.

[SMR 368]

Having lobbying power doesn't make unions oligarchic. Right now, they are the only counter to the lobbying power of corporations, who are no longer limited by how much money they spend to influence politics. Unions can never match dollar for dollar, corporate lobbying.

Sure, lobbying power isn't the lynch pin that makes unions oligarchic. It's just a little suspect when the article claims that our elected government is dominated by a small group of oligarchs with power to control the system but thinks that somehow union elections are a clean reflection of what's best for the workers and aren't also controlled by power brokers with money, connections, and influence.

And what has matching dollar for dollar corporate lobbying have to do with the price of tea in China? This isn't about unions vs. corporations vs. the government vs. whoever else. All of those have their own group of power mongers who are trying to increase their own power. One side may be more powerful than the other, but that doesn't mean we need to support the weaker side.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure, lobbying power isn't the lynch pin that makes unions oligarchic. It's just a little suspect when the article claims that our elected government is dominated by a small group of oligarchs with power to control the system but thinks that somehow union elections are a clean reflection of what's best for the workers and aren't also controlled by power brokers with money, connections, and influence.

And what has matching dollar for dollar corporate lobbying have to do with the price of tea in China? This isn't about unions vs. corporations vs. the government vs. whoever else. All of those have their own group of power mongers who are trying to increase their own power. One side may be more powerful than the other, but that doesn't mean we need to support the weaker side.

Unions exist to represent and act on behalf of its workers. Corporations answer to their shareholders. Neither one is at fault for being structured that way, but often times, the interests or benefits of the shareholders are at odds with the well being of the workers of that corporation, and technically, the same holds true in reverse. So in that sense, unions provide a balance of power between the shareholders and the workers.

I would disagree, however, that they are on equal footing as far as desire for power and influence. For one, most union workers have no economic ambitions beyond being fairly compensated, and to be able to retire. Shareholders are looking for increasing their capital, which is limitless. Many shareholders nowadays are looking for quick returns on their investment, not long term results. Publicly traded corporations are therefore at the mercy of the whims of the shareholders, who may not have any long term desires for the corporation to thrive beyond whatever short term gains they are after. Many shareholders also see unions as standing in the way of such short term gains, since unions focus on the long term benefits to its workers.

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling is really what has opened the floodgates to such tensions, as the race for which side can wield its influence politically without any limitations, thanks to the SCOTUS ruling. The unions are fighting back under these new game rules. Until there's a constitutional amendment to define corporations as not individuals, this battle will escalate further.

[Zero Sum 305]

I think it would be best to actually put numbers side by side here- cold, hard facts. Not conjecture about what is worse or relativistic conclusions based on flawed thinking.

All sides that are working in their self-interest, contrary to the common good, need to be examined.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it would be best to actually put numbers side by side here- cold, hard facts. Not conjecture about what is worse or relativistic conclusions based on flawed thinking.

All sides that are working in their self-interest, contrary to the common good, need to be examined.

This is a good start:

Five myths about the labor union movement

(these ones in particular)

2. Unions are bad for economic growth.

Economists on the left and the right can debate this one for days. The pro-labor side has a strong argument: The period of highest union penetration, from the 1940s to the '70s, was also a period of sustained economic growth. The other side counters with examples of unions doing harm to their members and industries: The "jobs bank" that the United Auto Workers maintained for years, paying laid-off workers to do nothing, is a favorite. And labor's foes like to note that states in the South and the West with "right to work" laws restricting unions have successfully lured companies from the North or from abroad. But at least for now, the most heavily unionized regions -- the Northeast, the Midwest, the Northwest and California -- still hold most of the country's wealthiest states and its most dynamic metro areas.

The more pertinent claim against organized labor may be on the public-sector side, where unions put significant pressure on state budgets, particularly with pension obligations. A new study by the Pew Center on the States finds a $1 trillion gap between what the states have promised their workers and what they've set aside.

........

5. Unions have the Democrats in their pocket.

They wish. Despite their diminished numbers, unions still pack a powerful punch in national politics -- exit polls show that white, working-class union members in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan vote for Democrats at far higher rates than white, working-class voters who are not in unions. And unions certainly have a seat at the table now after lacking one during the Bush years. Whereas then-AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was invited to the White House only once -- for the pope's visit in 2008 -- Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern is now among the most frequent visitors to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But what do they have to show for it? Obama has held off on pushing the Employee Free Choice Act. Union leaders were told to wait until health-care reform was done, and now even the compromise labor bill may be doomed with the loss of the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate. Obama's and the Senate's preferred funding source for universal health care is a tax on high-cost health plans, opposed by the unions; the White House had agreed to labor-friendly revisions, but they are now in doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902046.html

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not too sure where you are, but that's not usually the case.

Actually government contracts are quite serious in the way they are written and the expectations that come with them. The amount a company gets paid is often based not only on completion time, but also quality of work in said completion time as well. It's not easy at all to win that bid and many a times stat governments will use outside of their own state contractors to do the work as they are willing to do it for less money.

To be fair, I had the Federal Government in mind when I said that.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Unions exist to represent and act on behalf of its workers. Corporations answer to their shareholders. Neither one is at fault for being structured that way, but often times, the interests or benefits of the shareholders are at odds with the well being of the workers of that corporation, and technically, the same holds true in reverse. So in that sense, unions provide a balance of power between the shareholders and the workers.

I would disagree, however, that they are on equal footing as far as desire for power and influence. For one, most union workers have no economic ambitions beyond being fairly compensated, and to be able to retire. Shareholders are looking for increasing their capital, which is limitless. Many shareholders nowadays are looking for quick returns on their investment, not long term results. Publicly traded corporations are therefore at the mercy of the whims of the shareholders, who may not have any long term desires for the corporation to thrive beyond whatever short term gains they are after. Many shareholders also see unions as standing in the way of such short term gains, since unions focus on the long term benefits to its workers.

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling is really what has opened the floodgates to such tensions, as the race for which side can wield its influence politically without any limitations, thanks to the SCOTUS ruling. The unions are fighting back under these new game rules. Until there's a constitutional amendment to define corporations as not individuals, this battle will escalate further.

Constitutional amendment? Oh man, you are reaching out there aren't you?

The problem was the way the original legislation was written and the SCOTUS screwed itself with its own ruling in the late 90's against Bill Clinton and the line item veto. They made sure that if one part of a piece of legislation was unconstitutional, then the whole thing is...

This is exactly what happened in that ruling. The ruling wasn't in favor of corporations, it was in favor of actual individuals who were shut out by the current law structure. The SCOTUS even said to re-write a better bill that was inclusive of corporaations only... Look at how fast the Dems rushed to do that...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The problem was the way the original legislation was written and the SCOTUS screwed itself with its own ruling in the late 90's against Bill Clinton and the line item veto.

Hey thats my line!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Some would argue "corporations have a duty to investors.. bla bla" - Wrong. They have a duty if they want to KEEP investors. After all, those investors make a choice.

Dude, do you know NOTHING about fiduciary duty? Sheeeeeesh.

Note to self: feeling the need to re-read The Wealth of Nations at the moment.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Dude, do you know NOTHING about fiduciary duty? Sheeeeeesh.

Note to self: feeling the need to re-read The Wealth of Nations at the moment.

I understand it quite well.

You're missing the point though on what it means to CHOOSE to invest into a company/buy stock in said company and taking a risk versus being blatantly stolen from and given to someone else who you had no control of them getting said funds.

[Zero Sum 305]

Taxes... grand larceny, government style.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

I understand it quite well.

You're missing the point though on what it means to CHOOSE to invest into a company/buy stock in said company and taking a risk versus being blatantly stolen from and given to someone else who you had no control of them getting said funds.

Putting aside the latter half of your sentence since it is not germane to what I asked you, if you understand it so well, why then did you say:

Some would argue "corporations have a duty to investors.. bla bla" - Wrong.

It is a crucial tenet of the law of corporations that they owe a duty to their investors. Nevertheless, given that fiduciary duty is one of the most slippery of legal concepts (not just in relation to management/shareholder relations, but in a more global sense), I am deeply impressed that you understand it quite well. I've been grappling with it as a concept for 10 years in my academic and professional lives, and I still can't quite pin it down. Bravo!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Putting aside the latter half of your sentence since it is not germane to what I asked you, if you understand it so well, why then did you say:

It is a crucial tenet of the law of corporations that they owe a duty to their investors. Nevertheless, given that fiduciary duty is one of the most slippery of legal concepts (not just in relation to management/shareholder relations, but in a more global sense), I am deeply impressed that you understand it quite well. I've been grappling with it as a concept for 10 years in my academic and professional lives, and I still can't quite pin it down. Bravo!

When you create laws based on the choices people make, there's always a slippery slope. Legal experts on both side of the issue can win an argument in the right court of law. It's just a matter of who brings which cards to the table.

The problem here is the inherent laws themselves.

Disputes amongst investors/corporations should always be more civil than criminal.

There are always bad egg corporations out there, but the majority have their own interests to look out for and 9/10 those interests include keeping investors happy. If the investors aren't happy, then they are going to take their money elsewhere to someone who can satiate their financial interests.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Taxes... grand larceny, government style.

He's regurgitating the Libertarian fallacy that we are taxed against our will.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

He's regurgitating the Libertarian fallacy that we are taxed against our will.

We are.

Perhaps you should speak to Wesley Snipes about those who do not pay their taxes.