PDA

View Full Version : Visual Effects Society panel "“Understanding Unions"



Dexter2999
12-03-2012, 10:06 AM
article over at fxguide
http://fxguide.com/quicktakes/ves-understanding-unions-panel-report/

rcallicotte
12-04-2012, 09:36 AM
Thanks. I like the fxguide site.

Cryonic
12-11-2012, 12:31 PM
Unions definitely have a positive side to them, but they also have a negative. Look at the political fighting that is going on right now in Michigan about the "Right to Work" laws. I live in a "Right to Work" state and I like the fact that I'm not forced to join a union if I work in certain places (like grocery stores), but that doesn't mean I can't join a union.

jeric_synergy
12-11-2012, 12:40 PM
The political 'infighting' is not infighting at all: it's forces hostile to unions doing their thing. IOW, it's just 'fighting'.

If you benefit from union initiatives, being a remora is kinda low.

Dexter2999
12-11-2012, 03:28 PM
Most fighting of unions is about wages and pay increase schedules and benefits and compensations.

The unions want what is best for the employees.
The management wants what is best for the investors (or even the state.)

The unions may stay resolute in attaining maximum benefit for its members without consideration of the impact on the employer's situation.
The employer is going to try to get the maximum work result from a minimum of resources (labor or equipment.)
There is abuse on both sides to be sure.

Producers want to have CG sweatshops.
CG artists want a living wage and overtime compensations.

This could result in "runaway" production being outsourced to overseas facilities.

However, I prefer to err on the side of the group that my best interests at heart.
EDIT** On re-reading this I realize that it suggests that I am CG professional. That is not the case. I am however an IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees) member.

Cryonic
12-12-2012, 10:48 AM
The political 'infighting' is not infighting at all: it's forces hostile to unions doing their thing. IOW, it's just 'fighting'.

Funny... I didn't say 'infighting'...

Verlon
12-12-2012, 03:21 PM
Anyone with too much power is a bad thing. Letting unions dictate whatever they want to their employers would eventually bankrupt the company. Likewise, unions formed because companies were exploiting workers.

History has plenty of examples to show how power corrupts. What I do not understand is why 'free market capitalists' can look at me with a straight face and say how it is just good business sense for Acme to use its financial might to arrange a better deal with its suppliers, to organize trade agreements, and to outsource to cheap labor to remain competitive. They say that using patents/ copyrights and protected markets are just a part of good business strategy.

But the sesame people scream communism and the end of the American dream when workers attempt to use the same techniques to get a better deal for their product (labor/time or effectively, their very lives).

bobakabob
12-12-2012, 03:51 PM
Absolutely agree it's about balance. Hopefully the pragmatists on both sides win out. The Japanese understood this approach decades ago, where company directors ate in the same canteen as the workers. But if you're not in a union you really are exposed and no one will be there for you when the $h*t hits the fan. If you're unfortunate enough to have nutters in your union shooting your comrades and company in the foot you have membership and hence a voice. The same applies if you have mad company directors. Stand up to them in debates and use your vote :)

DigiLusionist
12-15-2012, 08:36 PM
I have contracted 3D artists over the past ten years to do work for me or for my clients, if the projects were big. Unionization of the 3D field is pointless. I can contract a person from Estonia, the Phillipines, and Micronesia.

Unionization is about power. Those who establish unions always benefit the most; union members and businesses, the least. Because ultimately, in order to meet the demands of the union leaders, the cost of productions will rise beyond companies' ability to afford them. Then, outsourcing will be the only way for non-corporations to be involved. This has been going on for a hundred years in many different industries; all with the same outcome.

As an individual, I do not want anyone else speaking for me. I can do that myself. Nor do I want to be forced not to earn money in order to "strike." I find that oppressive and counter-intuitive. Nor do I like the idea of unions shutting out non-union members from working. That is wrong.

So. If some believe unionization is the path they want to take, that's their prerogative. The reality of business is that nothing stays the same, companies have to be competitive in order to survive and make money, and, if a person doesn't want to work in a situation that they deem to be sweatshop, they don't have to.

DigiLusionist
12-15-2012, 08:44 PM
Verlon, there is no free market when government intrudes. That, by definition, means the market forces that normally would be in play are restricted from doing what is in the best interests of both sides of an economic equation.

With a few exceptions, business folk aren't out to screw their workers. Especially workers with high technical skills who are hard to replace. So the tendency is to find a balance between what the company can afford and what the worker will accept rather than what the company is willing to pay and what the worker has no other choice but to accept. There are always choices; including not working in a field that requires too much but offers too little in return.

toby
12-16-2012, 11:37 PM
Unionization is about power.
Yes, power to meet business owners at their level. Power to have a wage that keeps you off of welfare while the owners are some of the richest multi-billionaires in the history of the planet. You know what I'm talking about.



Those who establish unions always benefit the most; union members and businesses, the least. Because ultimately, in order to meet the demands of the union leaders, the cost of productions will rise beyond companies' ability to afford them. Then, outsourcing will be the only way for non-corporations to be involved. This has been going on for a hundred years in many different industries; all with the same outcome.
Since you know so much about history, you must be happy to know that unions have declined dramatically since the 50's - soon we'll lose all overtime pay - *yaaaaaaay*.



As an individual, I do not want anyone else speaking for me. I can do that myself.
Really? You can spend thousands on lobbying for every bill that goes before congress?



Nor do I want to be forced not to earn money in order to "strike." I find that oppressive and counter-intuitive. Nor do I like the idea of unions shutting out non-union members from working. That is wrong.
They only block non-union workers because businesses will use them to bust the unions with cheap, *desperate* workers. They force you to strike to prevent abuse of desperate workers. It's long-term thinking, which businessmen don't understand.



So. If some believe unionization is the path they want to take, that's their prerogative. The reality of business is that nothing stays the same, companies have to be competitive in order to survive and make money, and, if a person doesn't want to work in a situation that they deem to be sweatshop, they don't have to.
Right - if their kids are starving, they don't have to take the only job they can find. Totally up to them.

If what you said was true, sweatshops would not exist. But they do. Companies will still be competitive if their competition is also unionized - busting unions is a way to get *ahead* of the competition, to make *extra* money, to increase profits. If this was only about "surviving", you wouldn't mind if successful companies were unionized, would you.

toby
12-16-2012, 11:45 PM
Verlon, there is no free market when government intrudes.
Not quite. There is no *100%* free market where government "intrudes". 100% free market completely allows toxins in food and environmental disasters.



With a few exceptions, business folk aren't out to screw their workers.
I know of several studios in LA that are not only non-union, but also breaking the law in what they pay. They also have strategists and lawyers to find and exploit loopholes, or trick people into agreeing to them. Do we have to wait until *every single studio* is trying to screw us over? If there's ONE good studio, that means they're *all* good?

DigiLusionist
12-16-2012, 11:57 PM
Toby, of course there will be ****-hole companies out there. I started off in one. But your assumption that all companies will inevitably become such places is not borne out by experience and reality.

In what way are these companies you speak of breaking the law? Do they pay less than minimum wage?

And, no, there is not a Free Market in America. Hasn't been one in 100 years. But what we have today is excessive government intrusion; not out of need for protections (because there are now numerous laws and agencies created to provide employees of any industry), but more and more out of cronyism and political ideology.

DigitalSorcery8
12-17-2012, 12:43 AM
Unions definitely have a positive side to them, but they also have a negative. Look at the political fighting that is going on right now in Michigan about the "Right to Work" laws. I live in a "Right to Work" state and I like the fact that I'm not forced to join a union if I work in certain places (like grocery stores), but that doesn't mean I can't join a union.
Right. So you get all of the benefits of having a union and not have to pay to be in it.

We have ALL benefited from unions and I thank God that there were many brave souls who stood up for workers rights. Were it not for unions, we would be FAR worse off. And these so called "right to work" states are only going to hurt ALL workers in the long run. It's very shortsighted to think that these right-to-work states will actually benefit you. It will not - not one bit.

Balance is what is needed - but right-to-work is not balance.

DigiLusionist
12-17-2012, 01:05 AM
Right-to-Work IS balance. No one should be forced to join a union and pay dues if they don't want to.

Unions have diminished in America specifically because they have harmed businesses, and thus employees and consumers. Unionization had dropped dramatically in the private sector since the '20s. Where unionization is growing once again in America is in the public sector.

These unions almost exclusively support one political party. Their political patrons lavish unsustainable benefits and exemptions to union workers in return for huge political contributions. This is otherwise known as fascism. Fascists don't like their power subverted, and do not really care about workers, unless they are Union workers.

DigitalSorcery8
12-17-2012, 01:06 AM
With a few exceptions, business folk aren't out to screw their workers. Especially workers with high technical skills who are hard to replace. So the tendency is to find a balance between what the company can afford and what the worker will accept rather than what the company is willing to pay and what the worker has no other choice but to accept. There are always choices; including not working in a field that requires too much but offers too little in return.
You are so very wrong. Look at nearly the ENTIRE fast food industry. Look at Walmart and many other super stores. MOST "business folk" are out to make the most profit that they legally can. If that means cutting back your hours so that they don't have to deal with health care, that's what many - if not most - do. There is proof of this - average wages have remained relatively stagnant while our productivity has continued to increase. The money goes to the top - NOT to the workers. The last time in US history that there was such incredible wealth disparity was in the 1920's.

- - - Updated - - -


Right-to-Work IS balance. No one should be forced to join a union and pay dues if they don't want to.
Balance? You get all of the benefits and don't have to pay?
**EDIT** Actually I got the above statement wrong. Even in NON right-to-work states, employees do NOT have to join a union. People need to read up on the FACTS and not jump to conclusions. The point is, right-to-work will not help workers in the long run. Period.
**End Edit**
I'd hate to see what you call unbalanced.


By the way... average worker pay in ALL right-to-work states has declined. When you break the unions, you destroy ALL bargaining power with the powerful employers. We are now going BACK to the way things were before unions. Power and money will continue to congeal at the top and we will ALL be far worse off. But don't take my work for it. Wait and see. :)

DigiLusionist
12-17-2012, 01:22 AM
WalMart sells cheap goods at low prices. Those who have little money benefit from WalMarts. If there were only Nordstroms, poor consumers would be out of luck. The battle to unionize WalMart exemplifies the oppressive intent of union leaders. No one who works at a WalMart deserves to be paid more than what the market will bear. And, if the pay is too low, a person doesn't have to work there.

Businesses are legally required to make as much profit for their stockholders as they can; under the direction of the boards of Directors. This is called their Fiduciary Responsibility. The GOVERNMENT makes them meet this obligation or face sanctions; including imprisonment.

Also, business is about profit. Despite what the current federal Administration claims. Without profit, bills don't get paid, and people get laid off.

By the way, ObamaCare forces every employer with 50 employees or more to provide health care, even if the employees work part-time. This is unsustainable new cost for businesses who sisnce the election have started laying off employees by the hundreds of thousands. Because of government intrusion. Because of a law that doesn't even fix the health care system. It is nothing more than a mechanism to force the unionization of the health care industry. Read the law, if you haven't already. I have. There were four bills. The last, which was passed and signed is 2000 pages. None of the politicians bothered to read that version.

DigitalSorcery8
12-17-2012, 01:26 AM
From MediaMatters.org:

Our findings -- that "right-to-work" laws are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions -- are based on the most rigorous statistical analysis currently possible. These findings should discourage right-to-work policy initiatives. The fact is, while RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. For legislators dedicated to making policy on the basis of economic fact rather than ideological passion, our findings indicate that, contrary to the rhetoric of RTW proponents, the data show that workers in "right-to-work" states have lower compensation -- both union and nonunion workers alike.

DigitalSorcery8
12-17-2012, 01:38 AM
WalMart sells cheap goods at low prices. Those who have little money benefit from WalMarts. If there were only Nordstroms, poor consumers would be out of luck. The battle to unionize WalMart exemplifies the oppressive intent of union leaders. No one who works at a WalMart deserves to be paid more than what the market will bear. And, if the pay is too low, a person doesn't have to work there.
Yeah... so easy to say - and when you don't have a job? Yup, you take what you can get and have little to no choice. So... they make lots of money out of their employees and give them crap. Now try to compare that with Costco who treats their employees FAR better by paying them twice as much and still make LOTS of profit. The difference is GREED. And that's a BIG difference.


Businesses are legally required to make as much profit for their stockholders as they can; under the direction of the boards of Directors. This is called their Fiduciary Responsibility. The GOVERNMENT makes them meet this obligation or face sanctions; including imprisonment.
Wrong. Publicly traded businesses are "required" to make that profit. But there are MANY ways to make profit and many better ways to maximize that profit over time. Screwing over your workers is not "required" in order to make that profit. You're using an excuse for businesses.


Also, business is about profit. Despite what the current federal Administration claims. Without profit, bills don't get paid, and people get laid off.
Yup... business is about profit. I own a business and had employees. What I told them and my clients - "I'm greedy as hell. I want more money than I can ever spend. But... I won't screw YOU to get it." And again about your continued use of the word "profit" - you don't have to screw over employees to OBTAIN profit. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.


By the way, ObamaCare forces every employer with 50 employees or more to provide health care, even if the employees work part-time. This is unsustainable new cost for businesses who sisnce the election have started laying off employees by the hundreds of thousands. Because of government intrusion. Because of a law that doesn't even fix the health care system. It is nothing more than a mechanism to force the unionization of the health care industry. Read the law, if you haven't already. I have. There were four bills. The last, which was passed and signed is 2000 pages. None of the politicians bothered to read that version.
Yeah... I heard about that BS. People like the owner of Papa Johns and Olive Garden complained about it. Papa John owner said it would cost him 25 to 30 cents more a pizza to comply with the law. It came out shortly thereafter that it would ACTUALLY cost ten to fifteen cents per pizza. Not surprisingly a HUGE backlash ensued and BOTH Papa Johns and Olive Garden backed down. When you say that you're going to lay off employees because you don't want GOOD PEOPLE who work FOR YOU not to have health care... what a surprise that people don't like YOU.

Obamacare hasn't even been - nor will it be - fully implemented until sometime in 2014. Don't give me that crap. Every other first-world nation can take care of its own people, and yet WE can't? It's about time we do. In the 1970's the top 2% owned 7% of the nation's wealth. Today it's 39% The laws they've had passed that have allowed "trickle up" economics to work in their favor are destroying this country.

Get the facts straight and don't take on face value the crap that Fox News is selling. They lie. :)

DigiLusionist
12-17-2012, 01:46 AM
Your error is in using Media Matters as a reliable, unbiased source. But, there are many sources available online. All different slants and agenda. All will say different things about this subject.

You seem to view employment as a combative engagement with evil Capitalists. If I am misreading your posts, I apologize. Having worked in numerous industries since I was a teenager, and having been in an Entertainment union, a Hospitality union, Food Industry union, and a Construction union, I have had nothing but negative experiences. Because of the unions.

Older union workers negotiated bennies for themselves that future employees like myself never had. In fact, in three of these unions, I had no benefits for the first year of employment. But I still had to pay dues during that time.

Now, I don't know what your work history is, or what your 3D background is, but if you are having a hard time finding employment, or don't feel you are being paid what you deserve, you have many other career options to pursue. Unionization of an industry will only make it harder to find work in it.

EDIT: ObamaCare has been in implementation since 2010. It goes into full implementation next year. So, yes, the law HAS already had a negative impact on the economy. Business have to plan their spending and marketing costs months if not years ahead of time. So, with the financial uncertainty that has hit this country since 2008, coupled with policies that do not give clear indications what tax rates and regulation compliance costs will be, businesses go into lock down mode.

Take your own advice: Educate yourself before telling others they are wrong.

DigitalSorcery8
12-17-2012, 02:27 AM
Your error is in using Media Matters as a reliable, unbiased source. But, there are many sources available online. All different slants and agenda. All will say different things about this subject.
And there are plenty of other sites that state the same. In fact that Media Matters site states facts that Fox News stated as "facts" and are refuted. Perhaps you should quote sites that state how wonderful right-work-states are?


You seem to view employment as a combative engagement with evil Capitalists. If I am misreading your posts, I apologize. Having worked in numerous industries since I was a teenager, and having been in an Entertainment union, a Hospitality union, Food Industry union, and a Construction union, I have had nothing but negative experiences. Because of the unions. I have worked for and seen far too many workers taken advantage of - both by owners and unions. I don't state that all unions are good OR perfect. Again - without unions we would not have safe workplaces or a decent wage or better working hours and many other things. Do you dispute this?


Older union workers negotiated bennies for themselves that future employees like myself never had. In fact, in three of these unions, I had no benefits for the first year of employment. But I still had to pay dues during that time. Well then perhaps it's time to change unions - not legislatively but from within. Things like teachers unions not negotiating tenure is outrageous. Tenure should not even be allowed. But that's off on another tangent...


Now, I don't know what your work history is, or what your 3D background is, but if you are having a hard time finding employment, or don't feel you are being paid what you deserve, you have many other career options to pursue. Unionization of an industry will only make it harder to find work in it. I've been working since the mid 70's and have worked in quite a few industries. I don't work FOR anyone in 3D but have my own archviz business. And I can tell you - were it not for the Great Recession - my employees would have had healthcare. It would have cost me some profit, but I would have had FAR more loyal employees than a company like Walmart has! As I said... I'm greedy - but I won't screw over my employees. Would you?


EDIT: ObamaCare has been in implementation since 2010. It goes into full implementation next year. So, yes, the law HAS already had a negative impact on the economy. Business have to plan their spending and marketing costs months if not years ahead of time. So, with the financial uncertainty that has hit this country since 2008, coupled with policies that do not give clear indications what tax rates and regulation compliance costs will be, businesses go into lock down mode.

Take your own advice: Educate yourself before telling others they are wrong.

ObamaCare Provisions by Year:

2010(26 total, 26 in effect)
2011(20 total, 17 in effect)
2012(11 total, 10 in effect)
2013(15 total, 5 in effect)
2014(16 total, 2 in effect)
2015(1 total, 0 in effect)
2016(1 total, 0 in effect)
2018(1 total, 0 in effect)

It's many of those items in 2013 and 2014 that will begin to seriously affect employers.

As I said... by 2014 most of the provisions will be in effect. As you can see - not ALL of ObamaCare has been implemented. Educate YOURSELF.

Dexter2999
12-17-2012, 07:20 AM
Older union workers negotiated bennies for themselves that future employees like myself never had. In fact, in three of these unions, I had no benefits for the first year of employment. But I still had to pay dues during that time.

I've seen this in the union as well to a degree. But it isn't entirely as painted. It is a method that corporate attorneys use when negotiating with unions. It splits union votes by being divisive...at least in my experience. In one union contract they offer benefits to the senior members of a union that new members won't qualify for. The older members go along thinking they have paid their dues and "tough luck" to the new guy. Now roll ahead a few years to the next contract negotiation, now they old timers are getting screwed with no pay raises (mind you they are already "topped out") and the newer employees get thrown a bone of some sort. They new members are eager to get SOMETHING, ANYTHING! So they are more receptive to a contract that screws over senior members. And in this way the lawyers representing the company have managed to come out on top in the long run.

Your comment about Wal Mart providing cheap goods to poor people...well, yes they do. But they don't enrich any community they are in per se. They actually destroy independent business by undercutting prices and providing a convenience that can't be matched by small business by having such a broad selection of merchandise. They have a history of creating minimum wage jobs without healthcare and often working employees without paying overtime. All while managing to pay each of the Wal Mart heirs an annual sum equal to the earnings of about 80,000 of their employees. That is a 1 to 80,000 ratio.

The same kind of thing goes on in fast food. There was just an article talking about how a McDonalds employee or a Papa Johns employee would have to work about 350 years to make what the top executive at the company earns in one year.

I'm not against capitalism as innovation in finding a market and meeting needs. But I am against capitalism in the form of using people to profit off of in a gross fashion. If a person's efforts result in the company owner making a profit then a fair compensation needs to be made. FAIR is not whatever the govt. determines to be bare minimum. FAIR is not whatever a company can get away with.

Make money on your product or service. Don't make money off of using people like little more than slaves. You may not make as much of a profit, but a profit can still be had.

And it isn't a legal responsibility to make as much as you can for the investors. No, that is merely how you motivate others to invest, by showing high returns. It also happens to be how corporate exec's justify huge salaries and bonus packages. But there is no actual law. And if cutting jobs raises the quarterly earnings report to justify those numbers they have no issue with that. Because those jobs aren't people to them, they are just numbers on a page.

Cryonic
12-17-2012, 12:16 PM
Unions were created in a time when there were few, if any, laws to protect the workers. OSHA didn't exist. Protections for whistleblowers didn't exist. Minimum wages and overtime weren't defined. But things have changed (yes, thanks to unions), but that doesn't mean that unions HAVE to EXIST now to get similar results.

Walmart has violated laws, and has been fined and punished for it. The workers weren't in a union for this to happen.
McDonalds and other Fast Food chains aren't, in the majority of cases, corporate owned and they operate under the laws of each state they are in. Most of the employees here that I'm aware of, are paid above the minimum wage because they aren't attractive jobs. Who would the union negotiate with? The corporate headquarters? They don't control workers wages. The individual franchises? Well, that's gonna be a huge amount of overhead as either all of them have to agree to a single contract, or have to be negotiated with individually... which is what already exists without the unnecessary overhead of a union.
I've seen what unions have done... just look at the Auto Industry in Detroit... or what has happened to Hostess (which was a combination of debt and inefficient workforce usage due to contracted rules with unions).

No one is forced to work for Walmart, just like no one is forced to shop there. Customers choose where to spend their money. And where they spend their money is where the jobs go. In publicly traded companies, stockholders are able to vote on Board members. Don't like execs making so much, get together with fellow shareholders and get them replaced... Just like dealing with Senators or Representatives in government... For privately owned companies... Stop shopping there and convince others to do the same.

JCG
12-17-2012, 01:28 PM
In my country we have what we call "Solidarist Associations." They are almost like unions but with some differences. The main difference is that not only the workers join it. The executives and the owners of the company join it too and have representatives in the board. Another nice difference is that you have to pay fees to the association every month but, if you're fired or quit, you get back all the fees that you've paid plus a high interest.

toby
12-17-2012, 10:30 PM
Unions were created in a time when there were few, if any, laws to protect the workers. OSHA didn't exist. Protections for whistleblowers didn't exist. Minimum wages and overtime weren't defined. But things have changed (yes, thanks to unions)
And they can be changed back. Almost every single one of them can be removed, undone, especially now that our elections are completely up for sale thanks to Citizens United. A good example is the loss of double-time pay on your 7th day of consecutive work.



McDonalds and other Fast Food chains aren't, in the majority of cases, corporate owned and they operate under the laws of each state they are in. Most of the employees here that I'm aware of, are paid above the minimum wage because they aren't attractive jobs. Who would the union negotiate with? The corporate headquarters? They don't control workers wages.
That's a great benefit for the corporation. Do you think that's entirely coincidental?


I've seen what unions have done... just look at the Auto Industry in Detroit... or what has happened to Hostess (which was a combination of debt and inefficient workforce usage due to contracted rules with unions).
Auto workers make good money because of the car-craze of the 50's and 60's, automakers agreed to union demands because there was so much profit to be made, and they didn't anticipate foreign cars. It's not a good example of unions - but a good example of how different every story is.


No one is forced to work for Walmart
Yes no one is forced to eat. You can work at walmart or starve, the "choice" is yours. They get paid so little that they have to apply for welfare, and you think they have a 'choice' to go somewhere else?? Walmart systematically destroys the competition that could provide alternate jobs. That's what ALLOWS THEM to pay so little in the first place.

toby
12-17-2012, 11:17 PM
Toby, of course there will be ****-hole companies out there. I started off in one. But your assumption that all companies will inevitably become such places is not borne out by experience and reality.
Is history not reality? Why would *any* company pay 10 bucks an hour when *none* of the competitors pay more than 6, regardless of whether it's a living wage? Why would *any* of them pay overtime if they didn't have to? If Walmart drops the average pay for workers in a given area, why would *any* competitor pay considerably more than that? The ***-hole companies affect the average to a negative degree, and not just once, but continuously.



And, no, there is not a Free Market in America. Hasn't been one in 100 years. But what we have today is excessive government intrusion; not out of need for protections (because there are now numerous laws and agencies created to provide employees of any industry), but more and more out of cronyism and political ideology.
Like I ALREADY SAID; yes, it's not a hundered percent free - that would involve *allowing toxins in food* and *rampant destruction of our air and water*. Don't ignore my words just because you have no answer for them. History has blatant examples of this destruction. Those "numerous laws and agencies", created to stem that destruction, are under CONSTANT attack from the right wing. RP wants to destroy ALL OF THEM, and you know who I'm talking about. So please don't expect us to believe the lie that we don't need unions or that 100% free market is going to save us.



Unions have diminished in America specifically because they have harmed businesses, and thus employees and consumers.
That's a *crock*. Unions have diminished because 1. they raised the average pay of non-union workers, and apathy set in, and 2. because there is *always* profit from busting unions, so there is *always* some effort to do so. How did we have a booming economy in the 50's with more unions, and almost TRIPLE the top tax rate we have now, if *anything* you say is true?