Sorry, Union, but your time has passed

[question everything]

I will be the first to accept the major contribution that unions made to working conditions of all of us. Forty-hour work week, paid holidays and vacations, even employer-provided health insurance (to which I am strongly opposed, separate topic).

It was during the primaries, when Dick Gephardt's plan was to demand more employer-provided health insurance that helped me formalizing my opinion, and have stated here often. His was based on most of us working for large corporations during most of our working years.

The reality is that since the 80s - yes, Reagonomics but also mergers and acquisitions - we have moved from working for mega corporations headed by interchangeable nameless gray suits, to small businesses. Many of us, after being unemployed and underemployed ended up being self-employed and some lucky ones started their own busynesses and hiring employees.

I have been writing resumes for many years now. It used to be that working for the same employer was a good sign of stability. Not any longer. Now, when so many change so many employers - by choice or by necessity - working for the same employer for, say, 20 years, is a sign of stagnation. Certainly the elimination of many jobs during the Reagan years and the proliferation of technology caused many to start new companies and most of them are small.

And as I replied to a post yesterday about why more Hispanics support Republicans - not all of them are the "little guy." Many own their own small business and small business owners, at best, see government - any government agency - as irrelevant, and at worst as hindrance.

Owners of small business cannot afford to offer generous "benefits" the way the GMs and the IBMs of the world could. In California, at least, there are many rules of what employers have to provide and comply, depending on how many employees they have.

I know of many small business that had to reject jobs from government agencies because of all the paperwork they had to fill detailing how many minorities they employed. For many, complying with the disability act and the family leave act is very difficult/

So when the Democrats are still working on the 50s mindset of large corporations and unions and obligations to employees and government programs - they simply lose all the small business owners and self employed voters. A simple fact whether we like it or not.

But I was never certain how much my perception was anchored in reality until I found this new story:

"Nationally, small businesses account for 99.7 percent of all employers and create 60-80 percent of new jobs in the economy annually, said Rachel Baranick, deputy district director of Small Business Administration Santa Ana"

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/communities/irvine/article_1087853.php

Many here talk about reaching the faith-based voters in red states. I say we need to reach small business owners and self-employed.

Comments?

[mike_c]

1. if a business "cannot afford" to pay workers a living wage...

...or offer health care benefits (or a wage high enough to permit workers to buy their own insurance AND still have a living income left over) then they should not be permitted to employ people, IMO. It's that simple. When are we going to stop hiding behind the "busisness excuse" and stop institutionalizing exploitation of working people?

[Blue_Tires]

2. agreed n/t

[Caoimhe]

5. agreed

because to make a living by having a business employing folks and not paying them a livable wage and giving them health benefits, is profit on the back of your workers. Either scale back your business or get out of it.

[TankLV]

95. Businesses that don't pay health insurance force companies that do to

subsidize these slacker companies - because WE end up paying for all the uninsured every time they use an emergency room!

The OP's "logic" stinks at best.

[question everything]

100. Whether or not my logic stinks is not the point

I am just describing what is happening. We can either try to sit with these businesses and see how we can working something out, or keep our nose high and disdain them and continue to lose elections.

Personally, I'd rather talk with "greedy business people" than with bible thumpers.

[Sammy Pepys]

6. Then you'd have a lot of unemployed people....n/t

...

[mike_c]

31. what's the point of being employed if you can't make a living wage...?

The answer is obvious, of course: working to stay in poverty is preferable to being homeless and starving, especially in a time when government is reducing its responsibilities to the indigent. That's the answer business owners depend upon to keep their profits from being distributed to employees as a living wage-- it's the most basic prescription for exploitation, for making a buck on the bent backs of others less fortunate. It should not be legal to treat one's employees this way.

[Sammy Pepys]

54. Well, yeah....

Any income beats no income. I don't think you'll find many folks disagreeing with that. But that's exactly why you have to tread cautiously with stuff like this. I'm not poo-pooing a living wage, I'm just saying you have to be extremely careful with how it's administered. Lots of smaller or growing businesses and mom-n-pops don't have the profits to cover things like that.

[mike_c]

63. then they should not be in business....

I'm sorry, but what you're saying boils down to "if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage it's OK to pay them a wage that keeps them in poverty." It's not OK. Not for any reason.

[Sammy Pepys]

69. Well, Wal-Mart and the big boxes are taking care of that....n/t

....

[gizmo1979]

75. Who says mom and pops have

to pay union wages?Just pay a living wage if you can't afford that don't hire or get out.

[Sammy Pepys]

78. What do reckon a living wage to be?....n/t

....

[gizmo1979]

81. At least 11 bucks an hour.

30000 a year or so.

[0007]

122. Eleven dollar an hour bring in twenty two thousand a year for

two thousand hour work year. 30K a year is fifteen dollars an hour.

[mike_c]

85. it depends on where you live and work-- I'd suggest a wage...

...high enough that the local monthly cost of an average rental property for a family of four be no more than 25 percent of the monthly take-home pay. In the rural southeast that would have been about $2000 a month gross wages bare minimum the last time I lived there, probably a bit more today, while in San Francisco it might easily be $4000 a month today. A living wage has to be defined locally, based on local cost of living.

[DBoon]

8. The government should provide health care

Small businesses are screwed because they do not have a large number of employees to make private insurance affordable. The smaller the business, the more per-employee insurance costs.

Employees are more transient these days. Tyeing health benefits to employment is a disaster when people need to change jobs every few years.

Insurance was meant to manage risks - not to provide a social safety net. We need to move away from private health insurance and toward universal, government-provided coverage.

[mike_c]

19. oh I agree with that 100 percent....

I think that in lieu of that-- under the current circumstances in which government does not provide health care for all Americans-- no one should be permitted to employ people for less than a living wage and a minimum health care safety net. But I agree with you that providing that safety net is the proper role of government.

[question everything]

34. Agree. People should not base their ties with companies based on

health benefits.

[question everything]

33. Yes, offer a wage that allows employees to purchase their own

health insurance.

I really think that the reason why health cost have been exceeding the cost of inflation is that most of us do not pay directly. Yes, our out of pocket costs increase, but it is still cheaper than paying directly for an office visit or for a drug or, worse, hospitalization.

Ideally we should have a universal health care paid by our progressive taxes. But the alternative, in my opinion, is for us to be consumers and to force drug companies and insurance to meet the market needs.

[gizmo1979]

70. How much would this wage be?

25 30 dollars an hour that's what it would take minimal to obtain the kind of insurance I get today.You live on some planet in gaga land.If you get rid of unions you,lord of gaga land will be the only one with insurance,Because I for one will die before I give money to these liars and cheats.I hear the New Republic is looking for newbies.

[question everything]

89. You don't have to have the kind of insurance you get today

You shop around and get the one that best fits your needs and your pocket - just like car or life insurance. And, once everyone has to purchase his/her own, the market will come with all kind of products. There will be pressure to come with reasonable rates and there will be pressure on the pharmaceutical companies and on health care provider once people realize they, not a third party, have to pay for a bandage.

You do not always need maternity and pediatrics coverage, for example. And you can increase your deductible and get one of those medical savings accounts. All you need is look at your budget and make your priorities. Perhaps skip the flat screen TV, for example, or TiVo, or the new RV.

This is what many people, who leave their jobs and are offered COBRA, find out. Their employer got the top of the line product with all the bells and whistles and they cannot afford it.

[Bandit]

56. If small business must provide health care then they should also

be able to dictate how you conduct your life. Like for instance fire you if you smoke or drink or drive fast or do anything that is considered unhealthy.Why would you possibly believe your employer should provide for your health care? Health care should be the governments responsibility or else the individuals. Anytime someone else pays your health care costs they deserve the right to demand you live a more healthy lifestyle or not have to pay for your negligence..or do you disagree?

[mike_c]

68. see my comments up thread-- I agree with you....

PRESENTLY health insurance is provided primarily by employers, hence my stipulation that employers required to pay a living wage also be required to provide health insurance OR pay employees enough to purchase their own insurance so that they're not left vulnerable to illness or injury. However, I fully agree that insuring adequate health care is the proper role of government. That insurance SHOULD be provided by a national single payer health care plan.

[question everything]

101. Bravo! My thoughts exactly

Not only that, they can demand and do have access to your medical information. No, not the nature of your visit, only that the insurance paid a certain amount to a certain health care provider. And if there is only one OBGYN performing abortion in your town, and a claim was filed on behalf of a female member of your family..

And then there are the ties that bind people and employers long after such a tie has outrun its benefit to both. And the fact that you have no say which insurance carrier your employer selects and whether your long time physician is still in the "network."

[Mass]

71. Living wage is one thing - Healthcare should be provided by the

government and paid by income taxes (both from companies and individuals). Healthcare attached to jobs is an anachromism nowadays anyway.

[styersc]

99. Because those who screw there workers

have a competitive edge over the decent employers. Crappy employers drive decent hardworking, decent employers out of business.

That's why I support Immigrant Amnesty and believe we should be working on the organization of working people including our immigrant brothers and sisters. If labor unites, in numbers represented by demonstrations this week- we win big!!!

[400Years]

3. not a zero-sum game, we can work with both

[question everything]

36. Right. But let's not ignore either (nt)

[Fierce]

4. Why are you assuming...

...that small businesses will do right by their employees?

[CountAllVotes]

7. Welcome to the DU Fierce!

:hi: & welcome to the DU Fierce!

I agree with you! We have a "small business" (making lots of bucks) where I live and they are a non-union shop. They treat their employees like crap - no benefits and low pay.

It it weren't for the 2 unions I belong to, I would not have any health insurance.

So I say, UNION YES! You better believe it! UNION YES!!!

:dem: :kick:

[Fierce]

9. Thanks for the welcome...

...and right on. I am a union member, my SO is a union member, and my home is a union home.

UNION PROUD, UNION STRONG.

[CountAllVotes]

21. I come from a family of old time Union workers

My grandfather was one of the first teamsters in America. I am proud of this. My family fought those bloody battles c. 1910-1930 for the rights that many of us now have. These rights are due to the Unions! Many don't realize it.

We need MORE Unions, not less!

POWER TO THE WORKERS IN AMERICA and UNION YES!! :patriot:

:dem:

[doc03]

98. Same here my dad told me about what the steel industry

was like when he started back in the 20's. Every shift you went down to the mill and lined up with the other workers by the railroad tracks and the boss would pick his workers. On payday the boss would hang his jacket outside his office and you would deposit your $5 for the privilege of being picked to work. One older guy told me he broke his leg at work back in the 20's and he had to walk from the upper end of town each shift for the line up to keep his job and was never picked until he had his cast removed. I am proud to work in a Union shop, we have our problems sometimes with our officers but it's better than the alternative. I make $24 an hour have 5 weeks vacation and full health coverage. If it wasn't for the Union my job would be one of those so called jobs Americans won't do.

[gizmo1979]

72. Amen union brother!

If not for the Union I wouldn't make 19 bucks an hour have great insurance that I pay 10 bucks a month for.I'd be working for some ass who owns a small business.I played that game for ten years and it was no fun and the only one who made a good wage was the owner.

[question everything]

38. I don't. I am just trying to read the map

of the voters. Why should we assume that if our candidate goes to church every Sunday and praise Jesus at every opportunity that, say, Utah will vote Democrat?

All I say is that we cannot ignore a large voting block that we should reach. Personally, I'd prefer the greedy industrialist over the hypocrite bible thumper, but that's just me. At least the first can be approached with logic and facts while the latter is beyond reasoning.

Welcome to DU

:toast: :bounce:

[gizmo1979]

74. What makes you think you could lure small

business owners to your party by slitting the throats of the unions.There are still a ton of union brothers and sisters so we ignore them to help the business owners makes perfect sense,not.

[question everything]

102. As someone posted above, it is not an either or

Not every business is suitable for union workers. If you have an office with five employees filing orders, shipping, and assembling small items in the back room - where is a role for a union? And you do pay decent wages and you do provide health insurance and even a 401K?

But the nature of small business owner - as many have attested here - is to mistrust a government program, especially one that tells him/her how to run the business.

All I am saying is that we should not alienate such business owners and try to find what bothers them and how we can help them and get them on our side.

[Fierce]

116. You're talking all over, that's why people are getting annoyed.

Are you comparing a union to a govenment program? What? Are you saying that unions tell businesses how to run their operations? Don't I wish!

If you want the Democrats to reach out to businesses, then for crying out loud, just say that. You don't need to say "Unions: Past their time!" in your OP.

Also, other people have said exactly what it will take to get small-business owners on our side: Universal single-payer health care.

[Deep13]

10. translation: middle class is screwed.

Many people work for large companies. Most of them as service industries. Office workers are ripe for organization and the failure of the big unions is the failure to seek new organizational opportunities for retail and office workers.

I would like to know what constitutes a small business. I have a feeling it includes franchises and agencies under huge umbrella companies.

Of course most employers are small companies. A large fraction of employees work for a huge company, say Coca-Cola, that company is still one employer. Our economy is becoming more centralized, not less so.

Without a voice for labor in Congress and state capitals, there will soon be no legal protection for workers.

If small employers will not cover health care costs for their peeps, who will? We are producing more than ever. The problem is not jobs, the problem is distribution of profits. If GNP keeps growing and people continue to be poor, we are doing something wrong with our money.

[Zodiak]

87. Our government defined smal busnesses as 500 employees or less n/t

[question everything]

103. I did not know that. I was thinking in term of 50 or less

The ones with 500 usually do provide benefits. I know of companies with 25 that do.

[Telly Savalas]

108. It's more complicated than that.

It depends on the sector in which the business operates.

This table from the Small Business Administration summarizes:

http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html

[Zodiak]

118. wow...you're right

However a quick perusal of the table indicates that most buinesses are considered small until they reach 500-1000 employees. There is a notable, but minority chunk that are only 100 employees, though. Regardless, the 500 number seems to be the mode.

Still...no business is considered large if it goes above say, 80 employees. 80 employees is about the number of people working in a major grocery store. Not a mom and pop shop.

It is the mom and pop shop with 5-10 emloyees that our government wants for us to think as representative of "small business", when it is nothing farther from the truth.

[napi21]

11. Beware of statistics! They can prove anything you want them to !

There's no doubt that small businesses account to 99% of all employers, BUT how many people do they employ compared to the big boys?

What is their definition of a small busines?

60%-80% of new jobs in the economy are in small businesses. Perhapse, but lots of those are displaced workers who start their OWN business...and MANY fail within the first few years!

Unions had their problems, I agree. Some got too big and TOO arrogant for their own good or that of their members! But the problems we face in the US with health care and wage rates wasn't caused by the unions!

When I entered the work force, the company provided "Hospitalization"! It was paid for completely by the employer, but it only covered you if you were hospitalized! But wait! A Dr. office visit was $5.00!!!! Few if any prescriptions cost more than $10.00!

When we want to lay blame somewhere, we need to look closely at what has happened to the Health Care Industry in total!

As to wage rates...Corp. Officers, even the Chairman & CEO, used to make 5 to 10 times the rate of the average worker. NOW, it's 500-1,000 times that! Greed by a few has taken over the business world. Top priority has become, hire the cheapest labor you can find...SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR MULTIMILLION $$ COMPENSATION PACKAGE!

[Sinti]

42. Absolutely!

The blame the union scheme is not only BS, it's enabling the exploitation and greed at the top. This is actually destroying the entire economy in the long run, it's too top heavy.

You earn less and give more and the top officers of the corporations get exponentially more, eventually there's nothing at the bottom (let alone the middle) to go to the top and the whole thing falls over.

Unions are not only good for workers, they're good for America (and economies in general). Healthy economies are like circulatory systems, what you want is a healthy flow of money throughout. If all the blood in your body was going to the top you'd have an aneurysm, same with the economy.

Edited to add: perhaps people don't stay with one employer longer, because that employer doesn't give them a reason to ... i.e., they could do better elsewhere and this idea that you get raises for increases in productivity, but inflation rises by rotations of the earth, you have to move on just to keep up in some cases. There's a human limit to productivity you know.

[question everything]

43. This is where the free market comes into place

You can be a deadbeat but will still be able to get a loan. You will pay high premium but you will get one. If you are a good risk, you will get much better loans.

You can be a horrible driver but will still be able to get insurance. You will pay high premiums, but will still get one. If you are a good driver you can shop around for the best deal.

This is what is constantly being instilled in us: be an informed consumer and shop around, and wisely.

But not for health cost. Yes, all of us are paying more for health insurance premiums and for out of pocket, but none of us can actually shop around for, say, the best family practioner or the best erythromycin. Why? Because there is always a third party payer. First, our employer is the one who chooses the insurance carrier - and we go along with loss of privacy. Second, it is the insurance that bargains with the providers of the allowed charge.

I really think that if we'd had to get the invoices directly that prices would not rise at two and three times the rate of inflation.

Ideally, we should have a universal health plan covered by our progressive taxes. But if not, we should be paid by our employers whatever he pays on our behalf and we should go shopping. I have no doubt that both health and insurance providers would meet our needs by offering different program to different people and where we should be able to shop wisely.

Oh, and let us deduct all of our medical costs from our income - the way our employers do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. But health care isn't like other purchases

If you're having a heart attack, you're going to want the best cardiac care, not the cheapest. If you are diagnosed with cancer, you're not going to call around and ask, "How much do you charge for chemotherapy?"

I am self-employed, and I pay for my own health insurance, and it's a lousy deal, even in supposedly progressive Minnesota. I pay a hefty monthly premium and have a $1000 deductible. This was the best deal The hefty monthly premium actually PREVENTS me from getting preventive care, because it's not covered.

Yes, it keeps me from going to the doctor as often as I did when I was in Oregon and in a real HMO with no deductible and only $25 for an office visit and $25 for each test. But what my current insurance does is prevent me from getting the tests you're supposed to get at my age.

$220 for an eye exam, $300 for a mammogram, and don't ask what the other tests cost.

That's penny wise and pound foolish.

Yet if I were to become seriously ill, insurance would supposedly pay.

That's the crazy part. They won't pay to possibly diagnose problems early, but if the problems get severe enough, then I'll finally get some benefits out of the thousands of dollars that I pay every year.

[question everything]

105. No, of course you are not going to search for someone in

case of emergency.

But, again, for routine physical and preventive care you would select a physician with whom you can work. And perhaps find a physician who does not work with an insurance company but charges you less because s/he saves so much money on overhead.

You know, this is how it used to be. When doctors would make house calls and you would pay for the visit. And insurance used to be for major medical - i.e. hospitalization.

More than 10 years ago a co-worker making then $80K, and I don't know how much her spouse was making, was complaining that her spouse had to pay $8.00 for allergy shot - once a week, I think - since the co-payment for an office visit was $10.00. And I was thinking that really, $416 a year could not have been too painful for them. She was driving a brand new SUV.

It is a matter of priority for each one of us. And, yes, for some such costs are prohibitive but if we were getting used to the fact that we pay for health care and we negotiate with providers prices would not have risen so steeply.

We buy new cars, we've remodeled our homes like crazy in the past years, we take vacations, we pay gym membership, we dine out - why should we not pay for health care? Because we are spoiled. We've gotten the notion that paying for health care is someone else's business. And because we did not care and did not look too closely, prices have been going twice and triple the rate of inflation.

If we were paying, I don't think that the pharmaceutical companies and health care providers could have gotten away with it. Next time you visit a clinic ask how much the visit would cost and the reply will be: "but the insurance will cover it." And I used to say: this is not the point of who pays for it.

[eridani]

114. We should not pay for health care AT THE POINT OF SERVICE

Any more than you pay the fire department before the put out your house fire. 10% of the population accounts for 72% of health care costs, so it's essentially the same economics as the fire department. Only a few need it, but everybody pays, because anybody COULD need it. It doesn't matter jackshit what people who don't get sick do about shopping for insurance policies.

[Teresa4ChrisCarney]

84. small businesses employ about 70

percent of the work force and have for many years. The Original poster is making an assumption that something has changed and he is right, but he has picked the wrong something. What has changed is the amount of money the middle men (insurance companies) get and the amount of wealth that has shifted to the powerful corporations.

[question everything]

104. I am not trying to lay blame but to describe what I see

Yes, we have a problem with medical care rising faster than the rate of inflation; has been doing this for over 20 years. And one problem is that we, the recipients of the health care do not have any say on how much we pay. I think that if we received the invoices directly and raised a big stink and find a way to shop for a better provider, even the health care industry would have to meet our demands.

And I agree with the problem of CEOs making 500 times the average worker. But these are not the small business owners who are very careful about where the money goes. These are the really big corporations, including CEOs of HMOs. If we chose our insurance carrier I think that many of us would stay clear of such companies that pay its CEO more than it pays its doctors. At least, I hope that would be the case.

What I am trying to say is that small businesses have no use for union and we should not shun them out. We should meet with them and see how a Democratic Congress and administration can better meet their needs that the current one.

[underpants]

12. I completely agree that the Dems need to go after Small Businesses

We are getting trounced basically because of the perceived idea that Republicans are good for Small Businesses. That seems to be about it. I see nothing really being done by either party-the Repubs take it for granted and the Dems shy away from the fight.

I have been trying to free up some time to read up on Small businesses (issues and concerns) and send the DNC some ideas on reaching them. Open public seminars with informed party representatives to listen to, advise, and connect with small business owners is probably the right approach. This is going to be simply word of mouth but once the word starts spreading it will do so quickly.

[Deep13]

14. Um, you might wanna rephrase that title.

Makes it sound like we are hunting them.:evilgrin:

[underpants]

41. BLAM!

Hold still

[question everything]

44. I hope you succeed. (nt_

[Jack Rabbit]

13. If this is class warfare, let us make the most of it

Democrats should not and need not cast aside the working poor to reach out the small business owners and the self employed.

Indeed, many of those faith-based voters in red states that the Democrats can pick up are people who would benefit from a revitalized labor movement. A lot of those voters are also WalMart employees. It is right and proper that we stand with them.

Of course, WalMart is hardly a small business. Making it disadvantageous for them to bust unions shouldn't hurt small business owners; in fact, we should bear in mind that part of WalMart's business plan is the destruction of small, locally owned businesses.

We should be able to find a solution that benefits both small business and the working poor.

[Deep13]

20. "WalMart is hardly a small business"

True, but I am wonder if an individual Walmart store is, at least on paper. Individual retail stores are often incorporated seperately for liability and other legal reasons. Is that what we mean by small business growth?

[IChing]

29. My Sociologist Professor said in the 70s

"Unions are created when business is not doing their job "

and used many historical examples to say that short-term profit is not always the bottom line,
that it is in their interest to have justly paid, healthy and trained workers.

Loss of union membership was in part contributed by giving workers stock options in
the company they worked for which in the beginning was not a bad thing until we reached the climax of business not doing it's job
with Enron and other corporate scandals which the workers lost their monies that a union would have had.
Corruption can happen in a union too.

[question everything]

47. Agree. No, not a class welfare

but we should not shun away small businesses as "greedy capitalist."

We need to recognize that the old world of large industrialists vs. the working man is over. Mainly because we have shifted to an economy where almost 80% is service oriented. I think that the strength of the union was that it had well trained ans skilled and knowledgeable individuals who could not easily be replaced. Not so for food server and cleaners and even greeters.

I don't think that all small business owners are scums and we even have some here, on DU. But we need to have open dialog with them to see what matter to them - beyond cutting wages, of course - and how the Democrats can help.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Nobody's calling small business owners "greedy capitalists"

Even Marxists consider them "petty bourgeois."

But being a small business doesn't make a person automatically virtuous, either.

[yurbud]

15. the way to reach small businesses and self-employed is single payer

health care, so they don't have to compete with benefits.

Doing without unions AND without legislative action on the same issues means cheap labor that has to be replaced every once in a while because they drop dead.

I taught college for seven years before I got any health insurance, and I got it at all because one faculty union negotiated for it.

Unions have consistently supported legislation like single payer that level the playing field so small businesses can compete with corporations in attracting employees.

[Deep13]

23. bing! bing! bing! bing! We have a winnah!

Dat's a commie pinko idear. I heard about it on da tay vee. Fetch me mah No-Spin slippers.

[Armstead]

16. Unions are the sand in the oytster

Unions are necessary tro keep the wages and standards for ALL workers at a decent level.

The mocdel may need to be changed from time to time, but the concepot of organized labor is always essential Otherwise -- as we have already seen -- workers get increasingly screwed.

As one union organmizer told me, the best way an employer can avoid a drive for unionization is to match the standards that unions require and treat employees with respect. That pressure is one of rthe reasons unioins are still necessary, no matter what percentage of the workforce is actually enrolled in unions.

Ideally government should be setting decent minimum standards and enforcing them. However, obviously that doesn;t always work that way. Look at hopw the real value of the Minimum Wage has plummeted since ther 1970's.

[question everything]

48. Agree. And small business can be the push for a government

provided "benefits" that have taxed employers.

This is what I hope will happen in MA and elsewhere. That it will be the business owners who will demand universal health care.

I just think with so many jobs today are service ones with no much skills, and that can be easily replaced, that a union just does not have any bargaining power.

[yurbud]

61. yep, if gov't did their job, there'd be no need for unions

but business is too greedy and thinks they can screw us without pushing us into unions.

[AX10]

119. True, and that is what the Japanese car makers did....

when they brought plants to the U.S.

[Fierce]

17. Also, having reread your OP,

...I fail to see where unions are a problem. What you're writing about is the fall of corporations, the rise of small businesses, and the complaints many small businesses have ("too much paperwork!").

[question everything]

50. Sorry if this was misleading

no, union are not the problem, they just are not as relevant as thy used to be. The Democratic party should not put the unions concerns as top priority since conditions have changed.

We cannot expect small business to provide working conditions that large corporations can, or could. But instead of lowering wages or cutting people off, our party can work together with small business owners to work together on legislation that will help all, like universal health care supported by our progressive taxes.

Welcoe to DU. Glad to read your comment.

:toast: :bounce:

[Virginia Dare]

18. I'm confused regarding your argument...

are you arguing against unions or employer-based benefits? Are you saying that small employers shouldn't have to provide a living wage, paid vacations, or 40 hour work weeks if it potentially harms their profitability? Or, are you specifically addressing the health benefits issue? How are you going to give small businesses an incentive to do right by their employees?

[question everything]

52. I am arguing against giving preference to union at the expense

of small business owners (and sorry if I tried to lump too many things together).

The economic situating has changed and we have to include small business owners in legislation that will benefit both employees and employers, starting with universal health care and, of course, a living wages. After reading your post I wonder whether we can even have a program where a start up can offer below minimum wage for, say, three years, while the government fills in the gap.

[papau]

22. Small businesses create 60-80% of new jobs - and 60%-80% of job loss

is due to small business.

It is still large company hiring that gets the permanent increase in jobs into the economy.

The only thing the small business person respects (as with all generalizations this is untrue in a large percentage of the group - but I am speaking of the average for the group) is a law -and then only if necessary - they are not driven by morals or ethics.

The reality is that we have not moved from working for larger corporations in general - although their has been a small shift to small business.

Owners of small business can afford to offer generous "benefits" the same way they offer the minimum wage - it is a cost of labor. If you are lucky and grow you will indeed have changed rules as to what the employers have to provide and comply, depending on how many employees they have, but this not going to stop or harm anything.

Indeed a 2 person shop hurts when one person is sick - but this is the governments fault?

The extra Federal paperwork is minimal relative to any other RFP they might get and choose to compete for. Indeed the Federal set aside for small businesses is free money usually.

The Democratic party will always get the small business owners and self employed voters that want a fair society - that want the goals of the party made real. The greed is a good thing crowd will never vote Democratic, no matter how GOP like we become.

The "Nationally, small businesses account for 99.7 percent of all employers" seems low and most likely does not count the one person unincorporated with a D/B/A name. But again the real employment - the employment that grows and whose growth accounts for the growth in total jobs in the US, is not coming from small business folks.

That said, the role of small businessperson is the one I want my relatives to jump into as that has the best life style and rewards - IMHO. :-)

[The2ndWheel]

24. So we're a country of small businesses?

Until they're bought out by Wal-Mart maybe.

Unions have no power because capital is far more mobile than labor. Capital has access to billions of people, most of which are so desperate that they'll work for anything. If you try and start a union these days, you're either shot, or you watch your job move to where there is an even more desperate person, or someone that will work cheap compared to what you made.

The global corporations and giant trade entities make the world go 'round. You can reach every small business person you want, it won't change a damn thing. Wal-Mart started out as a small business. Power centralizes and consolidates, that's all it does.

[Zodiak]

88. We think of small business as 5 employees

the government thinks of it as 500 employees. If you have 500 employees, I would not define that as a small business, but that is what our government does.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I work for a small business

and my boss is a Democrat. No, we don't have health insurance, but he's interested in Democratic ideas of insurance pools that small businesses can join so that employees can be covered. Since he and the techs are involved with chemicals every day, they understand and appreciate the EPA rules and regs as far as using chemicals are concerned. He's smart enough to realize that the real threats to his business are high gas prices and the stagnation of the housing market, both of which are effecting business, are the fault of Bushco.

[Fierce]

26. I've already decided...

...that you're not really writing about unions, but small businesses. But I can't let this sentence go:

"I will be the first to accept the major contribution that unions made to working conditions of all of us."

Yeah. Yeah, you will be the first to accept them. But those who are ready to accept them aren't always the ones in line to fight for them, are they? People like you who start out by saying "Unions have done lots of good things! I'll be the first to acknowledge that!" seem to forget that people fought and died for them. They weren't bestowed by employers who gave them because unions asked nicely. People DIED and they DIED FIGHTING. And employers are constantly looking for ways to erode those rights. And one way to help them chip away at your rights is to sit there and say you'll accept them, and then dismiss those gains with a big ol "BUT."

/drift

[mike_c]

28. hear hear....

Excellent post! Welcome to DU!

[Fierce]

117. Belated thanks for the welcome.

[senseandsensibility]

93. How "big" of the OP to accept them!

:sarcasm: Wow, what a guy. Good post.

[question everything]

107. If you will bother to actually read the post

you will find out that I accept the contribution of union as important in the life of working men and women. A slight nuances that is lost on you when you are eager to make a point about what... exactly? How easy it is to attack the messenger instead of debating the issue. And here I thought that we, Democrats, are different from freepers. My mistake.

[senseandsensibility]

121. First of all, I read your post.

I wasn't impressed. Second, you can stop with the condescending attitude. You blithely stated that you "accept" the unions' contributions, and immediately went on to the next thing. You gave NO indication that you understood the true ramifications of what you were "accepting", and how men and women have literally died for what you "accept." Regardless of how you meant it, "accept" is a passive term. Even if you meant that you simply "accept" their contributions in an intellectual way, it is still passive. With an attitude like that, no wonder you are so eager to make the small business's case for them. They are more than able to state it for themselves. But whether you like it or not, the relationship between workers and employers is an adversarial one. Employers, whether big or small, will not willingly provide health care or living wages. If they had their way, they would pay nothing. Your naivete is astounding. Thank goodness for the people who fought and died for what you so blithely "accept" (no matter how you meant it.) Now, I'll take a page from your book, and if you don't agree with my post, I'll accuse you of not reading it. Brilliant arguing point, I must say.

[question everything]

106. I do not dismiss the contribution of union

I am saying that the Democratic party has traditionally aligned itself with union and against business. And if we want to capture Congress and the White House, and make life better for everyone including union that we need to forge ties with small business who have no use for union.

This is an observation with which you obviously disagree but an observation and a suggestion for a cause of action nonetheless.


P.S. I grew in a home where we observed May Day. I've always believed that the red color was for blood of workers in their fight with the owners. I don't know how true this is.

[skids]

27. If you really can't stand unions...

...promote worker-owned businesses instead.

[question everything]

32. I do stand unions. They are great when you can bargain

and it usually with large corporations. But when you are dealing with small employers - less than 50 employees - there is really not much bargaining, is it?

Look at pensions. Once a company is out of business, like Bethlehem Steel, there go the pension fund.

Also, I think that the strength of the union was in the manufacturing companies, when you had skilled workers who were trained and knew the ropes and could not easily be replaced. But - and no offense meant - how difficult is it to replace a food server, or a housekeeper or even a caller in a call center?

[Radical Activist]

37. Not so.

Unions started organizing unskilled workers on a massive scale in the 1930's. It isn't that hard to replace a lot of factory workers either but they became well-paid jobs due to union efforts.

You're on the right track by bringing up the service economy. We have a huge group of under-employed workers in the service industry who need unions. They need enough pay to support a family, health care, basic benefits and respect. You can't move janitors, fast food, and retail workers overseas. That's where the labor movement is desperately needed and very relevant today.

[Bridget Burke]

73. Is it easier for small businesses to fire uppity employees?

No HR department to mess with. Just dump anyone who dares raise a question. Pay may be low & benefits non-existent. But the peasants are easy to replace!

[Caoimhe]

97. so true, and so sad n/t

[question everything]

109. If you think that an HR department can prevent

firing than you must not have been long in the work force.

Believe me, even during a down time in a cycling industry, where so many engineers and scientists were laid off, not a single HR person was. And, of course, not a single top executive. Oh, and their secretaries who were bored to death.

Most states are "at will" employment. I don't know about uppity employees, but we've all heard about firing the ones who smoke at home. I think that peeing in a cup for someone to analyze as a condition of employment is the most degrading function in a work force. But we do this. And more so for large corporations than for small business ones (at least, from my experience).

[Bridget Burke]

115. Oh, I've only been working 35 years or so....

I worked for an idiot trust-fundie who drove her small company into the ground because she had a nutso boyfriend. Just before the end, she fired me. No reason given.

I've worked in a larger establishment for most of my career. Not perfect--but we are allowed to complain. No, I haven't worked for many corporations--only the one.

[Teresa4ChrisCarney]

86. I think you are really confused

please excuse me, I don't mean to be rude but how hard people are to replace is not the standard for whether a industry should be unionized. There was a very sucessful union movement of hotel workers in So CA several years ago. What makes organizing possible is people willing to figh to have a better life.

Nothing has changed. There is not big shift to smaller businesses. There have always been smaller businesses who could not pay healthcare costs for employees. That is not new.

Yes we need universal healthcare and that will be very good for small business, but I fail to see what that has to do with unions. The democratic party doesn't have to choose between unions and small business.

[Caoimhe]

96. I work in a company with 22 workers

and the company actually saw cost savings when we went union 10 years ago. What happened was that the employees were more involved with defining their job descriptions, cross training and safety issues. Result: improved productivity, happier workers (no one feeling put out), excellent cross training which enabled people to be able to actually USE their vacation days,
and a big reduction in the # of workplace accidents! The union also helped the management shop for lower cost insurance and provided the employees with a credit union. The employees now feel that they can go to the boss with concerns or ideas to improve the business, because it feels like more of a partnership with goals than a sweat shop. You take care of your employees, they will take care of you. Workers with benefits are less likely to leave you in a lurch and having to train someone new every few months as well.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

30. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

Just wait till you reich-wingers meet the HISPANIC workers union that is forming as we speak... Please revive this thread on MAY 1st. That's MAY DAY in Russia.

[radio4progressives]

35. Not so Fast... The Latina/o Workers are Rebuilding the Unions

and we should be in solidarity with their cause, because as past events have exposed - and woken up the "Sleeping Giant" on this "illegal immigrant" issue, what we should be understanding is that the millions of workers and families that turned out in the streets the past week, many are actually unionized and when granted legal status, become members of Unions.

And the other thing that we should be learning is that the Latina/o - Hispanic communities are the best organizers, pro Union, and will be a huge voting block for Dems, thanks to Sensenbrenner's draconian and racists bill which provoked this outcry from immigrants and migrant workers and opened their eyes as to what Republicans are really all about.

So Dems Wake Up! This is OUR ISSUE, these are OUR Sisters and Brothers! Join with them in solidarity on May 1st in every city and town across this nation!

With this very unexpected, unplanned string of events - we are going to take power again - we are going to reclaim our democracy again! we are going to once again see the cause of socio-economic and political justice and equality for the poor and the working class, the underclass and disenfranchised in a major way in the next few elections!

The GOP's extremist fascists days are NUMBERED!!!! YES!


Viva La Revolution!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

39. I don't care if they build there own or join existing unions!

It's all the same to America's greatest threat and most insidious terrorists: BIG BUSINESS!

and VIVA LA REVOLUTION, RIGHT BACK AT YOU BROTHER OR SISTER!

[Sadie5]

40. Unions are the backbone of this country

If not for unions we would still be living in the 30s. If a small business can't pay a living wage, then let them run that business alone. Once Bush is thrown out of office I predict that unions will be strong again. As for question everything, I have seen other posts which make me wonder which side he/she is on.

[The2ndWheel]

46. Why?

"Once Bush is thrown out of office I predict that unions will be strong again."

What exactly makes you think that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. The backlash will mean a sharp turn AWAY

from the hysterial right

[The2ndWheel]

55. So that's going to stop globalization?

Nobody helped globalization more than our previous President Mr. Smooth. Somebody to the left of him economically taking office any time soon?

The only thing that will make unions strong again is if we run out of cheap energy, and then we'll all be so desperate because our entire civilization requires cheap energy, that slavery will make a huge comeback.

But if a simple backlash can fix things, then by all means...

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. You will not stop globalization

peak oil IS HERE.

And the problem with globalization is not the process but the method to the process... and the method chosen so far is a race to the bottom, when it COULD BE a race to the top.

That said, this country you will see a backlash hell some of us believe we now live in pre-revolutionary or civil war times. So if you ask me, I don't think this country will survive to see its 300 years... as a single nation... but that is a whole different kettle of fish altogether.

[The2ndWheel]

59. "You will not stop globalization"

Agreed.

"peak oil IS HERE."

Agreed.

"And the problem with globalization is not the process but the method to the process... and the method chosen so far is a race to the bottom, when it COULD BE a race to the top."

I disagree with that. I doubt it was ever meant as a race to the top. I don't think it was designed by humanitarians. It's always been about centralization and consolidation.

But maybe you're right, and it could be different, if we changed the entire structure of who sits in the seats of power.

"That said, this country you will see a backlash hell some of us believe we now live in pre-revolutionary or civil war times. So if you ask me, I don't think this country will survive to see its 300 years... as a single nation... but that is a whole different kettle of fish altogether."

Oh, THAT kind of backlash. Yeah, that is a different kettle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Yes globalization could be different

and it will not be diferent until we have revolutions, big and small all over the place... but with technology you can no longer stop it... but the net can and should be used to organize a global union movement.

[The2ndWheel]

62. But with that technology

can you have those revolutions? DARPA and the NSA play the same game, with a lot more money.

Also, in edit, if we have more machines and technology, are humans even needed as much? A bunch of organized Luddites, they could maybe take care of that. But then you'd come back around to DARPA developing some new GPS laser tracking system.

A global union movement won't be as simple as using the internet. That's a lot of people. That's a lot of different people. That's a lot of different opinions. That's a lot of different situations. That's a lot of different ages, sexes(alright, maybe not that many different sexes), colors, borders, and everything else that can be exploited by the people running globalization today.

I'm not saying don't do it, because it is the only way to even out the organized corporate entites, but I just think we're(actual humans) too easily divided.

Parents need to feed their children, and when it's just as easy to send your job 1000 miles away, it's not easy to do the union thing. If everyone was in a union, that would be different, but that's a hell of a job to try and accomplish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Act locally

think globally

[The2ndWheel]

90. That's why humans are losing

Corporations act and think globally.

[gizmo1979]

77. free trade hasn't worked

look at the trade deficit for gods sakes.If globalization is so grand why is our debt at all time highs?What the hell are you going to sell to bring it back down?Wheat?That's alot of fucking wheat.

[The2ndWheel]

91. It's worked for those that designed it

Which is who it was supposed to work for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Yuo are looking at the final product of what

was designed by a small clique... now try to imagine a world where you would have FAIR trade, for FAIR prices wtih world wide unionization... and with Corporations not getting teh lion's share of the benefits. That is why I say the process cannot be stopped, you could even say it is evolutionary... but it is the method tot he madness, not the madness itself

[Jeffersons Ghost]

64. I don't know if you have ever been associated with a Union demo5

But as a young-un I was in the UMW and later worked at a Union print shop with an APTA bug for our jobs. We were the oldest shop in the area (100 years) and the best paid. At that shop Union and Management were as content as Union-bugs in a rug. With no Union competitors we got all AFL/CIO area jobs, including the big URWU plant in town. I think if the national had gone on strike some of us would have helped Lewis out for free, he was so good to us.

Management isn't always such a sweetie, especially the villains who go toe to toe with the UMU and get miners killed because they're too cheap to allow safety in their hell-holes. Non of those mines in the West Va. accidents were union. There's a lesson in that somewhere but media seems to have missed it again.

[flashdebadge]

45. Democratic Congress is no friend to UNIONS anymore (see this picture)

Our representatives will begin loosing Union Support when they see the spanish protesters waving these. I mean are we willing to give up land to illegals in order to get their vote? What about the unions in Texas? This poster insinuates that we are willing to give up Texas to Mexico. What kind of message is this??? I would like to know who in our party put these posters together. I wholeheartedly dissagree with its message.


http://wizbangblog.com/images/2006/04/Democrat%20protest%20literature

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Once you GET IT that is the complex history

you might get it

You know what is the greatest fear of the hysterical right? I will gladly tell you since you cannot figure this one out by yourself. The greatest fear is that these people will JOIN the unions they have been so busy destroying... like any NEW generation of immigrants has done. That is truly the fear of the hysterical right.

Now riddle me this batman... not that I am in favor of uncontrolled immigration.. but what are you planning to do with 12 million illegal aliens? Round them up all and send them back home? Seat down and START doing some of the logistics required for this. Tell you what... you don't want these people coming across? REMOVE THE MAGNET, FINE The companies that hire them, as specified by the laws NOT ENFORCED in this country because the hysterical right truly LOVES these people, as illegals and cheap labor. Capice?

As to returning Texas to Mexico... methinks Mexico will say no... Texans are too damn crazy... but if you UNDERSTOOD the history between Mexico and the US, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as well as the war of 1848 this might make a little sense... but I forget Americans are ignorant of their own history... let alone that of their neighbors.(even when closely connected)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

65. I AM WILLING TO GIVE UP TEXAS TO MEXICO AND BUSH WITH THEM

If those Texas billionaires want to oppress Mexicans let's make it easy for those Red staters! They can have Alabama too and I'll move back up north and freeze to death with the rest of you as the Republicans push heating oil through the stratosphere. Can we turn the states over to them before November? The local Union printing shop gives local Dem candidites free printing because the party won't spend much money in states that are a write-off.

Anyone who thinks the Union doesn't support Democrats or visa-versa is an idiot.

[Capn Sunshine]

76. Why ruin a nice place like Mexico

with a bunch of Tejanos?

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Reaching for the small business hat owner

First off, I run a publishing house.. yes you heard me right. I do this as a one person orchestra, for the moment I cannot afford to hire... so this means 16 and 20 hour days.

That said, what IF I could run my business with full time employees... I would do all in my power to offer health and living wages, in exchange for a solid work day... I don't ask much from an employee, truly, just a good solid work day. That said, we are no longer in a country where the employeers should provide helth care, for this should be a national single payer program... period... and the time for this is coming.

I know that if unions and labor protections did not exist, I could conceivably work people for 12 hours seven days a week, no problem. Is this what you want to go back to? Look, I as a business owner building this bidnes is one thing... but asking employees to work 12 hours days, seven days a week, was common in the 19th century. Without a strong labor movement I can guarantee you we will go back to that. Is that what yo want. If this is the case... then you are right, the time of unions is well past and I hope you enjoy working yourself to death with no vacation time, or scarecely time off. Perchance you will want to spend the company script at my company store too? Whiskey and vodka are cheap, now bread and meat are not.

[question everything]

110. No. The time of union has passed only as the sole component

of the Democratic party. As you can attest - if we can have a universal health care this should make it easy on small business owners. Shouldn't they, then, be a natural ally of the Democratic party?

As long as union demand and get their very generous health insurance through their employer why should they care about the 43 million with no health insurance? And, let's be clear - a universal health care will not be as generous as some of the private ones that we get through our employers. It will be our tax money and too many will be too eager to place restrictions and rations on the system.

Yes, I do support a tax-payer universal health care, but I am going with my eyes open.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Unions do not demand anything

they fight for things.

I guess you are truly willing to give up your 40 hour week and two weeks vacation.

now the reason why the debate over health insurance is over is because states are considering doing it... whether the feds do it or not. That said, you have swallowed a lot of the right wing propaganda, and that is sad... including the rationing. A funny thing happened on the way to the forum... Canada has national health insurance, they spend HALF per capita of what we do... they get far better ou8comes. We already in effect pay for it, very inefficiently and god dammit we ain't getting the results.

But you have swallowed the propaganda. By the way, I did work in EMS for ten years... what you call rationing we call triage, and IT IS PRACTICED today. Oh and true rationing IS DONE right now... oh you don't have insurance, there is the door. ERs are turning patients away... oh you don't have this... I guess no surgery for you. It is done RIGHT NOW... we just choose not to call it rationing.

[Sinti]

58. Below minimum wage WTF?

This bit of your post really crawled under my skin.

"I wonder whether we can even have a program where a start up can offer below minimum wage for, say, three years, while the government fills in the gap."

IMO if a startup can't offer even minimum wage to its employees it needs to not have employees, perhaps volunteers who work for pizza at night or something, like the old Compuserve did when it was just learning to crawl.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

67. yeah, I'll fall my union butt out to work for small start-up bus for free!

but when you hear my proposal, you'll wish you were dealing with the AFL/CIO! Sweat-labor ain't cheap unless we cheapen it brothers and sisters.

Let's see... if there's just the two of us working you do half the work for half the profits making my take 50% of the cooperation for the long term, right partner? We'll just let Uncle Sam Kerry take care of that pesky medical coverage, after he shuts down big business Caribbean loop-holes.

[Mass]

79. The problem is that the government has abdicated all that could help

small societies. There is no reason that pensions and healthcare should be paid by companies according to the number of their employees. Tax their benefits and make healthcare and pensions that follow you throughout your professional life and this will solve a large part of the problems you are quoting.

Actually, the Democrats have many interesting propositions to help small businesses w/o hurting workers (unfortunately not the two I listed, but others). But this is not something that people know. And the SBA has been hurting small businesses terribly by cutting help, so your example is not great either. (some ideas of what the Democrats in the Senate do here: sbc.senate.gov/democrats).

As for paying lower than the minimum wage, this is crazy. People already have trouble living with the minimum wage.

[dogman]

80. I'm Union and I work for small or large businesses.

As do the 600 members in my local. Not all employers who use Union labor are large corporations. In the building trades the employer calls the hall for highly trained workers who then return to the hall when the job is completed. The non-union employers hire a few skilled workers as managers and then hire from temp agencies, many that they also own. Our productivity cannot be met by their strategy and they use Union contractors to set the price for their work. They just share less with their workers. The majority of small businesses that I've observed are simply after a tax dodge. They also do everything they can, legally or illegally to cheat the Country also. The amount of personal expenditures written off by many as a business expense is the reason many are in business. I don't think that a large number of these people are interested in the Democratic message since many feel no obligation to their fellow man or their Country.

[TankLV]

94. Bullshit. We need Unions NOW more than ever.

It's long overdue to have NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT (our taxes) and RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT!

Get rid of the greedy insurance companyies (middlemen).

Your post makes me see RED!

NEVER will agree to what your premise is or what you suggest.

It is complete and utter bullshit!

[Debs]

111. I have a good life

Largely because I have a union job. One I have had for 29 years. I don't feel stagnated because what I do for a living is NOT WHO I am. It allows me the freedom to explore and grow in who I am. I get a lot of time off. I make a very good wage. AND I contribute to society. No one questions the ability of COMPANIES to work together to or to merge to maximize THEIR benefits ( more profits) yet seem to have a problem that PEOPLE using their only real advantage over corporations to band together to maximize THEIR benefits. Unions are the very epitome of what is grassroots democratic direct action. using our demographic to make our lives better. If it were left to my company I would make minimum wage and they would super glue me to my chair. Europe is doing quite well and unions have a lot more power than they do in the US I think you have internalized the right wing message here. In Europe many unions have a seat on the board. It doesn't seem to be hurting Aeroflot or mercedes.It was a labor supported government that brought socialized medicine to Saskatchewan and later to all of Canada. The US has had by FAR the most violent labor history of any major industrial country. Do you think Canada or France would EVER call out the Army much less the National Guard to break a strike like the US did in the year of the great upheaval 1877? Or the Pullman strike of 1894? I disagree that the time of the Union is over, One of the things my union traditionally did was put things in our contract to MAKE the company be more efficient. I think we should move in the other direction and make stronger labor laws. Corporate profits are SOARING yet YOU seem to focus on how companies cannot AFFORD to the sort of wages and benefits to give workers a good life. I do not accept that.

[CPMaz]

113. Great post....

"No one questions the ability of COMPANIES to work together to or to merge to maximize THEIR benefits ( more profits) yet seem to have a problem that PEOPLE using their only real advantage over corporations to band together to maximize THEIR benefits."

I have a question for everyone who thinks labor unions are bad - what are corporations if not unions of investors?

How many of you would support banning labor unions, if, in the interests of fairness (not in the Republican dictionary? Try Webster's), all corporations were similarly banned? If all businesses had to be sole proprietorships or simple partnerships?

Enough already - the preamble to the Constitution begins with "We The People"; not "We the Officers and Directors". It's time to make our elected representatives remember that.

Let the screaming begin... :)

[kentuck]

120. Companies and corporations will always take advantage of workers...

..especially during hard time. You can see some of it now. Demands on employees are more pronounced everyday. It's just a matter of time...