"supporting the troops"

[Mr. Ron]

So, I was called anti-American today for disagreeing with some twat in my class about supporting the troops.

Basically, their argument was: " Maybe one day you can thank one of these average "grunts" for putting his life on the line in wars he may not even agree with so that you have the freedom of speech to sit cozily behind a computer being contemptable toward him."


And I just don't see how they are defending any of my freedoms. Really, how is the average jarhead over there keeping me free?

[griftadan]

i've decided long ago that i'm not going to argue with someone who says i don't support the troops, if you just say "ok i don't", than they usually don't know what to do from there.

[Smokey D]

I think you can support the troops in that what they're doing is undoubtedly among the most stressful and difficult thing you can do, and for that they deserve acknowledgment.

You can disagree with them for joining the military, participating in a potentially war (not necessarily Iraq, mind), or abdicating their conscience to the military command.

I don't think these are necessarily in opposition.

[Babble]

most people who "support" the military only do so via tax dollars.

ask them next time how they support the military.

[Mr. Ron]

I think you can support the troops in that what they're doing is undoubtedly among the most stressful and difficult thing you can do, and for that they deserve acknowledgment.

You can disagree with them for joining the military, participating in a potentially war (not necessarily Iraq, mind), or abdicating their conscience to the military command.

I don't think these are necessarily in opposition.

Oh, I agree, but what I want to know is: How the hell are they "keeping me free"???

[Babble]

ron why do you try to rationalize the irrational

[Yuzz]

they're filling statistics so that you wont face conscription!

[Mr. Ron]

ron why do you try to rationalize the irrational

b/c I want to try to understand why people think they way they do.

[BridgeToSolace]

Why are you asking people to support arguments that they aren't making :p

I'm sure the logic is something like the "'Dem terrists gunna follow us back home if we dun cut n run!" thing.

[Babble]

b/c I want to try to understand why people think they way they do.

because they aren't thinking rationally.

that is the reason. It's reinforced through mass belief and it's just a self perpetuating sentiment. It has nothing to do with reality other than the fact that it influences experience.

[Smokey D]

Oh, I agree, but what I want to know is: How the hell are they "keeping me free"???

I suppose they are in the vague sense that each troop is one more reason you're not going to get invaded.

But they aren't keeping you free by being in Iraq.

[Mr. Ron]

Why are you asking people to support arguments that they aren't making :p

I'm sure the logic is something like the "'Dem terrists gunna follow us back home if we dun cut n run!" thing.
He was insinuating that somehow without troops my freedom of speech wouldn't be possible or something.



Basically. The whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here!" argument angers me to no end.

[Mr. Ron]

I suppose they are in the vague sense that each troop is one more reason you're not going to get invaded.

But they aren't keeping you free by being in Iraq.

Yeah, thats hat I'm saying, and thats why I disagreed with him.

[BridgeToSolace]

Um...did you explain that to him rather than explain it to us?

Go ask protest warrior and see what they say :p

[Babble]

dont try to explain it to him for christ's sake.

he's not going to listen. you can't cure irrationality by being rational.

[Mr. Ron]

Um...did you explain that to him rather than explain it to us?

Go ask protest warrior and see what they say :p

I tired to but he wouldn't listen. I'm just bringing this up out of boredom/conversation/awareness I guess?

[Understanding In a Crash]

Those yellow ribbon magnets are all over the cars around here.

I could understand having it on a '94 Silverado (ROFL)... but honestly putting it on a new M3. Way to **** up a new car.

[BridgeToSolace]

He was insinuating that somehow without troops my freedom of speech wouldn't be possible or something.

As far as that goes, no troops = our enemies invading us = no more freedom of speech. Or something like that.

Basically. The whole "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here!" argument angers me to no end.

Both sides of the issue have completely retarded arguments and people.

[Babble]

= our enemies invading us

and people think Iraq is a mess

[Mr. Ron]

As far as that goes, no troops = our enemies invading us = no more freedom of speech. Or something like that.



Both sides of the issue have completely retarded arguments and people.

I know troops are important, I'm talking about the ones in Iraq.

[Hababi]

so ummm you're trying to counter an argument that you don't support the troops by not supporting the troops...

[WhoDidTheElf]

It's more of a sense that these people are willing to put their lives on the line to protect those freedoms even though they may not be at the moment. And also, they're fighting the terrorists there, instead of here, so...

[Mr. Ron]

so ummm you're trying to counter an argument that you don't support the troops by not supporting the troops...

No the question was how the troops over in Iraq actually keep me "safe". I generally support soldiers.

It's more of a sense that these people are willing to put their lives on the line to protect those freedoms even though they may not be at the moment. And also, they're fighting the terrorists there, instead of here, so...


I doubt truck loads of taliban are going to stream into the US even if we didn't have troops over there.


Again....we're talking about the troops in Iraq.

[dei]

Are you American, Mr. Ron?

[Mr. Ron]

**** yeah brah

[Hababi]

No the question was how the troops over in Iraq actually keep me "safe". I generally support soldiers.


But the thread topic is about supporting the troops and by knocking their job, you're basically knocking them. Every US soldier is sworn to protect his/her country and fellow citizens. No matter where they're at, that's their number one duty.

And, by fighting Al Quada in Iraq, American forces are preventing an insurgency from gaining an open haven.

[dei]

**** yeah brah

Support the troops then, or get out of my country.

[Mr. Ron]

But the thread topic is about supporting the troops and by knocking their job, you're basically knocking them. Every US soldier is sworn to protect his/her country and fellow citizens. No matter where they're at, that's their number one duty.

And, by fighting Al Quada in Iraq, American forces are preventing an insurgency from gaining an open haven.
I should have clearly stated that I was talking about troops in Iraq only then.


I'm not knocking their job at all, I'm just curious how my free speech would magically go away if they weren't over there. Thats what the guy was referring to.




Support the troops then, or get out of my country.

dude w/e I'm going to go listen to NPR now catch you lozers l8ter

[Hababi]

I should have clearly stated that I was talking about troops in Iraq only then.


I'm not knocking their job at all, I'm just curious how my free speech would magically go away if they weren't over there. Thats what the guy was referring to.

Your speech? No, it wouldn't go away, unless some crazy radical Islamist blew you up or something. But Iraq is gravely significant to US and international security.

[Mr. Ron]

Your speech? No, it wouldn't go away, unless some crazy radical Islamist blew you up or something. But Iraq is gravely significant to US and international security.

Except there's a large portion of sleeper cells already over here so.....

[Hababi]

Except there's a large portion of sleeper cells already over here so.....

So why create a facility for more?

[peeted]

I pitty the troops, is that the same as supporting them?

[DougJI]

What we have here is a fallacy. (go philosophy class) you see, supporting the troops does not necessarily imply supporting their superiors actions. For example, if George Bush ordered the troops to begin killing innocent women and children (wait... bad example...) er.. if her ordered them to invade Canada, and you disagreed with this, you would be un-american using your logic just because you don't agree with the president.

Unfortunately, one of the most american things around is freedom to protest, so as a matter of fact, not "supporting the troops" is probably more american than mindlessly following the president's statements and actions.

[Mr. Ron]

So why create a facility for more?

i don't believe we are tbh.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I doubt truck loads of taliban are going to stream into the US even if we didn't have troops over there.

But you must admit it's prolly keeping them preoccupied over there instead of plotting here.

[Mr. Ron]

But you must admit it's prolly keeping them preoccupied over there instead of plotting here.

All the terrorists that are interested in blowing stuff up are not just in Iraq. Plus, a lot of those are just foreign fighters, not necessarily terrorists.

[Reaganista]

man **** the troops nothin but a bunch of babykillers

except the ones i know IRL those guys were ok i hope no more of them get killed =(

[r1mbaud]

supporting troops is supporting death... love is all you need, we should hug every Iraqi and bomb em with care bears, I'm sure they'd realize how gnarly we are.

but really, theres no liberty being defended in Iraq, we're perpetuating the motivation of terrorists. Someone claims we're stopping a bunch of terrorists... I'd bet 90% of the "terrorists" in Iraq are not the ones we should be worried about from overseas. And that the other 10% fled to Iran (the remainder slain) etc. I know many people personally who joined the army, to kill people, and take pictures of their victories. I do not support them. I don't support overzealous murders, i support those earnestly concerned with protecting me, my family, my community, and my nation though maybe a little misled in my opinion but good people at heart eh? Well, wake I up in the morning, There's frogs inside my socks, Your mama, she's a-hidin', Inside the icebox, Your daddy walks in wearin', A Napoleon Bonaparte mask
Then you ask why I don't live here, Honey, do you have to ask?
Dylan's so divine.

[Oriah]

I support the troops, but I don't support what they are made to do over there. The people incharge are the ones we should be questioning.

[Reaganista]

how and why do you support the troops

[Seafroggys]

I'm gonna go out and say it.

I don't support the troops.

[DBoons Ghost]

The United States Armed Forces is the "protector of the nation" and therfore they are like little beacons of hope, freedom and liberty to a nation of ignorance.

That is where the the statements come from about the troops and they keep us safe and free. The fact that they exist, and men and women around the country willingly join knowing they could die for Uncle Sam means every citizen of this nation should thank the troops for protecting our illusion of freedom, life and liberty. The Armed Forces (historically) have been that beacon of hope, in WW1 and WW2 at the very least. Since then perception has been skewered for the sake of chest thumping and to fill the void left by our national pride being swept out from under our feet, it's nonsense to say the troops in Iraq are protecting us.

Though, if you wanted to stretch it, you could say since we are killing poor people in Iraq in the best interests of America, that since our interests lie in the oil fields in and around Iraq, that the troops are fighting for the future of our country and our existence.


Now, if you don't support the troops overall, or don't support the existence of the US Armed Forces, if our country ever gets invaded and taken over, you have no right to cpmplain about it, since it's gonna be the Armed Forces who dies so you can remain a citizen of this country.

[vacaria2]

US should have never invaded Iraq in the first place, but now that the big **** was made, they ought to fix it now. So yea, stay in there and fix the mess was made.

[Mr. Ron]

The United States Armed Forces is the "protector of the nation" and therfore they are like little beacons of hope, freedom and liberty to a nation of ignorance.

That is where the the statements come from about the troops and they keep us safe and free. The fact that they exist, and men and women around the country willingly join knowing they could die for Uncle Sam means every citizen of this nation should thank the troops for protecting our illusion of freedom, life and liberty. The Armed Forces (historically) have been that beacon of hope, in WW1 and WW2 at the very least. Since then perception has been skewered for the sake of chest thumping and to fill the void left by our national pride being swept out from under our feet, it's nonsense to say the troops in Iraq are protecting us.

Though, if you wanted to stretch it, you could say since we are killing poor people in Iraq in the best interests of America, that since our interests lie in the oil fields in and around Iraq, that the troops are fighting for the future of our country and our existence.


Now, if you don't support the troops overall, or don't support the existence of the US Armed Forces, if our country ever gets invaded and taken over, you have no right to cpmplain about it, since it's gonna be the Armed Forces who dies so you can remain a citizen of this country.

Yeah but the troops in iraq aren't the thing thats keeping me free.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yeah but the troops in iraq aren't the thing thats keeping me free.

Well, we all agree on that.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm gonna go out and say it.

I don't support the troops.

Why

[Mister_Che]

Basically, their argument was: " Maybe one day you can thank one of these average "grunts" for putting his life on the line in wars he may not even agree with so that you have the freedom of speech to sit cozily behind a computer being contemptable toward him."

Isn't this essentially what every host on Fox News says to their guests? They don't say how US forces in Iraq are keeping us free either. They just imply that an invasion would suddenly strip us of any freedoms and rights we have instantaneously.

[Mr. Ron]

Isn't this essentially what every host on Fox News says to their guests? They don't say how US forces in Iraq are keeping us free either. They just imply that an invasion would suddenly strip us of any freedoms and rights we have instantaneously.

Yeah, I was watching Hannity and Colms last night (my parents watch it...) and Hannity is such a ****ing nausiating tool bag. He must have used "American heros" at least 30 times in 2 minutes.

[DBoons Ghost]

Well, in a way they are heros. At this point your average seargent or corporal fighting in the "trenches" over there care more about the fate of your average Iraqi citizen then we give them credit for. They know a lot more about what they are about then we criticze them for. Some of them really are heros, and the shitty part is they are all following orders they barely believe in. They know it was a mistake, but now they feel responsible for the fate of the Iraqi nation.

[Oriah]

how and why do you support the troops

I support them in that they are just doing their job. Not all of them want to be there, and they too think the whole situation is meaningless in a counrty that doesn't want to be helped.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, in a way they are heros. At this point your average seargent or corporal fighting in the "trenches" over there care more about the fate of your average Iraqi citizen then we give them credit for. They know a lot more about what they are about then we criticze them for. Some of them really are heros, and the shitty part is they are all following orders they barely believe in. They know it was a mistake, but now they feel responsible for the fate of the Iraqi nation.

I agree its just that they use the term so much it gets ridiculous.

[lfantwister]

its like crying wolf; actual heros get no more respect than the 485733983 other "heros" lauded by hannity

[griftadan]

what does support even mean?

[Mr. Ron]

what does support even mean?

Many options!


They include:

A magnetic ribbon on your vehicle

A patriotic bumper sticker

flags

t-shirts

Possibly mugs.

[Danger Bird]

Well I support the troops in that I hope as few of them die as possible but I never really saw this as a major or relevant political stance.

[WhoDidTheElf]

All the terrorists that are interested in blowing stuff up are not just in Iraq. Plus, a lot of those are just foreign fighters, not necessarily terrorists.

I know that not all of them are actually in Iraq blowing them selves up, but it prolly keeps the majority of them, or at least the big groups, occupied with trying to keep us out of Iraq. Gives them something else to be POed about.

[Dr Hooch]

Many options!


They include:

A magnetic ribbon on your vehicle

A patriotic bumper sticker

flags

t-shirts

Possibly mugs.

You forgot "saying you support them on the internet"

[DBoons Ghost]

Essentially I got involved with an organization that buys stuff for the troops and sends them out to them in the field. Cookies, candy bars, underwear, socks and t-shirts.. Stuff Uncle Sam don't provide but things from back home that let them know we're still here.

I won't donate money to a fund or the Red Cross. If you want to help, just ask and I can provide links and means. I have many friends in the military (enlisted men) who are vets, retired etc.. who run these kinds of organizations.

[Mister_Che]

I'd like to see these links.

Also, I'm curious as to why you don't donate money. Just curious, but is it because you don't actually see what's being done with what you donate?

[DBoons Ghost]

I'd like to see these links.

Also, I'm curious as to why you don't donate money. Just curious, but is it because you don't actually see what's being done with what you donate?

Yeah I would want to see where every penny went, and I don't trust them to give the money to the troops.

Truth is, money is useless a troop in the fields of Iraq. They want food and clothes.

I'm trying to find links or get the exact URL from some friends.

[DBoons Ghost]

http://www.operationusocarepackage.org/site/pp.asp?c=ikLVJ7MSKvH&b=569653

Also just for the sake of doing it, I've dealt with these as well, and they have no website but here is something even better.


http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/6491.htm


http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/10849.htm

[Danish]

"Support the troops" is a meaningless, hollow propaganda slogan designed to kill debate. No one is saying that a society shouldn't have the right to defend themselves against aggression, but when those organizations are primarily used to commit aggression, it's a different story.

Truth is, money is useless a troop in the fields of Iraq. They want food and clothes.

This speaks volumes. You'd think the government would at least feed and clothe you in exchange for your life and/or long-term health...

[DBoons Ghost]

This speaks volumes. You'd think the government would at least feed and clothe you in exchange for your life and/or long-term health...

Yeah don't get the wrong idea there. Government issued goodies compared to Hanes boxer briefs is what I mean.. And Reeses Peanut Butter Cups and Chips Ahoy is what I meant in regards to food.

I suppose I should have clarified.

[Danish]

Yeah don't get the wrong idea there. Government issued goodies compared to Hanes boxer briefs is what I mean.. And Reeses Peanut Butter Cups and Chips Ahoy is what I meant in regards to food.

I suppose I should have clarified.

I think my point still stands, especially considering that private security contractors in Iraq get paid like 3x as much as your standard soldier.

[Babble]

well...they are private.

[DBoons Ghost]

I think my point still stands, especially considering that private security contractors in Iraq get paid like 3x as much as your standard soldier.

That's true. Actually I've heard of rates upwards to between 75 to 100 bucks an hour, and all time is billable. Even when you sleep.

I believe in the end that's more then a 4 star makes. Kinda disgusting when all is said and done.

[Babble]

why is that disgusting?

I'm not understanding this

[Danish]

why is that disgusting?

I'm not understanding this

Because it demonstrates that the US gov't thinks of their soldiers as expendable, at least that's the institutional mentality.

[Babble]

but they're already hugely overbudgeted.

[DBoons Ghost]

Because it demonstrates that the US gov't thinks of their soldiers as expendable, at least that's the institutional mentality.

As well the fact that we as taxpayers are not only paying troops, the cost to transport troops, as well as every bullet shot and bomb dropped.. but we're actually paying hired guns who can act without regards to the Armed Forces RoE, and they can also disregard just about every honorable law a soldier abides by under the military code of conduct.

[Babble]

wait wait wait

these private groups aren't being hired by private groups?

[Reaganista]

I support them in that they are just doing their job. Not all of them want to be there, and they too think the whole situation is meaningless in a counrty that doesn't want to be helped.
well it doesn't sound like you're really supporting them tbh

and it also sounds like you would be obligated to support any and all troops under that logic

wait wait wait

these private groups aren't being hired by private groups?
is that a serious question

[Danish]

but they're already hugely overbudgeted.

I didn't say they should spend more on "defense" -- in fact, if I were in charge I'd cut it by 75% in the first year. Wars of imperial domination are expensive!

wait wait wait

these private groups aren't being hired by private groups?

They're hired by both, though the US gov't is the biggest employer of mercenaries. You don't think regular soldiers provide security detail for brass, do you?

[Babble]

these sort of questions don't actually enter my life very often tbh

[Danish]

these sort of questions don't actually enter my life very often tbh

Why not?

[Babble]

because it's a distraction from what I want to achieve

[Danish]

because it's a distraction from what I want to achieve

What do you want to achieve?

[Babble]

music performance :X

and I say distraction...basically everything besides practice is a distraction.

[Danish]

Two words: Billy Bragg

[Iscariot]

I think you can support the troops in that what they're doing is undoubtedly among the most stressful and difficult thing you can do, and for that they deserve acknowledgment.

You can disagree with them for joining the military, participating in a potentially war (not necessarily Iraq, mind), or abdicating their conscience to the military command.

I don't think these are necessarily in opposition.

my thoughts exactly

if the roles were reversed wouldn't you want the support of your fellow citizens back home as you sat in the most dangerous and mind-breaking situation of your life?

i think it's childish to say that you don't support the troops because you don't support the war especially considering how many of the troops don't support the war either they're just there because the military is their career and they were ordered to go

a lot of those guys come back with pts and a number of other mental and physical illnesses and it makes me sick to think that there are people here who don't support them when they come home

[Babble]

I'm not familiar with his work. Is he politically active?

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm not familiar with his work. Is he politically active?

Billy Bragg is awesome. Just google Billy Bragg.

[Babble]

well..yeah..I see what you're getting at.

wouldn't look good on resumes to be perfectly honest.

[Danish]

well..yeah..I see what you're getting at.

wouldn't look good on resumes to be perfectly honest.

lol What wouldn't?

Having a degree in labour studies doesn't look good to prospective employers either. That's why I lie about it ;)

[Babble]

I meant..for instance. My band director is extremely conservative. If it were in a professional setting and I wore my opinions on my sleeve, I'd probably be fired pretty quickly.

I just want to entertain/teach, not be a voice for the so called masses

[Reaganista]

i havent been able to get hired by any kind of national corporation since i had a union job 4 years ago i think they think im a communist

[Akira]

As well the fact that we as taxpayers are not only paying troops, the cost to transport troops, as well as every bullet shot and bomb dropped.. but we're actually paying hired guns who can act without regards to the Armed Forces RoE, and they can also disregard just about every honorable law a soldier abides by under the military code of conduct.

This is the worst. The whole Blackwater fiasco shows just how much of a problem mercenaries are. These people are doing whatever it takes to keep their clients safe, even if that means pretty much shooting indiscriminately.

[Dr Hooch]

i havent been able to get hired by any kind of national corporation since i had a union job 4 years ago i think they think im a communist

I don't even understand the rest of the world

What do they care if you were in a union, and

What the hell is a "non-union" job? How can they stop you from like, joinging a union?

[Babble]

that can't as far as I know. however, they can neglect to hire you

[Mr. Ron]

This is the worst. The whole Blackwater fiasco shows just how much of a problem mercenaries are. These people are doing whatever it takes to keep their clients safe, even if that means pretty much shooting indiscriminately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/world/middleeast/22blackwatercnd.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190382701-J76PWgHgThYZugOlboRb7Q&oref=slogin

[Reaganista]

I don't even understand the rest of the world

What do they care if you were in a union, and

i think they think im a communist
What the hell is a "non-union" job? How can they stop you from like, joinging a union?
well if i started talking to coworkers about forming a union management would discourage it, spread disinformation, abuse the law, maybe come up with some unrelated reason to fire me, idk

if they failed in that and the workers voted that they wanted a union then management would have a lockout or just close the shop and lay us all off or whatever

[Oriah]

well it doesn't sound like you're really supporting them tbh

and it also sounds like you would be obligated to support any and all troops under that logic


I said that not all of them want to be there, that intails that I support the ones who are just doing their job, and disagree with the idea that they should be over there. The troops who are there to just pull triggers and actully believe they are instigating a positive change are the ones I don't support.

[Mr. Ron]

i think they think im a communist

well if i started talking to coworkers about forming a union management would discourage it, spread disinformation, abuse the law, maybe come up with some unrelated reason to fire me, idk

if they failed in that and the workers voted that they wanted a union then management would have a lockout or just close the shop and lay us all off or whatever

Thats ****ed up. Wal Mart does that.

[Reaganista]

I said that not all of them want to be there, that intails that I support the ones who are just doing their job, and disagree with the idea that they should be over there. The troops who are there to just pull triggers and actully believe they are instigating a positive change are the ones I don't support.
that doesn't make any sense
you're lauding the people who kill because it's a living wtf is so righteous about that

[Dr Hooch]

i think they think im a communist

well if i started talking to coworkers about forming a union management would discourage it, spread disinformation, abuse the law, maybe come up with some unrelated reason to fire me, idk

if they failed in that and the workers voted that they wanted a union then management would have a lockout or just close the shop and lay us all off or whatever

Jesus... I guess it's all fun and games in the land of the free.

[Mr. Ron]

Jesus... I guess it's all fun and games in the land of the free.

I always laughed on the inside whenever someone said that.

[Reaganista]

Jesus... I guess it's all fun and games in the land of the free.
well ya the idea is they're free to not hire somebody who they think might not be a communist

[Danish]

well ya the idea is they're free to not hire somebody who they think might not be a communist

Which is a violation of that worker's rights.

In the United States, it's harder to join a union than to break one. That's why only 12% of the non-agricultural workforce belong to unions, the lowest level since the Great Depression. That's why the UAW is about to give major concessions to GM.

[Dr Hooch]

12%? That's absolutely mental!

[griftadan]

Billy Bragg is awesome. Just google Billy Bragg.

the album he did with wilco was dissapointing, i hate the way he sings

[griftadan]

Which is a violation of that worker's rights.

In the United States, it's harder to join a union than to break one. That's why only 12% of the non-agricultural workforce belong to unions, the lowest level since the Great Depression. That's why the UAW is about to give major concessions to GM.

not surprising considering the level of global competition for labor

[Danish]

not surprising considering the level of global competition for labor

Way too simple. Why has the density rate remained above 25% in virtually every other industrialized country?

Union busting is easier in the US than any other industrialized country. If you're looking for a smoking gun, I'd say it most lies in the Wagner Act. But the 1970s really brought a new era of labour relations across the board, but the attack on organized labour has been especially pronounced in the US, and even more so in the so-called "right to work" states.

[griftadan]

theres also a negative vibe against unions that exists in the states that doesn't really exist anywhere else

[Danish]

theres also a negative vibe against unions that exists in the states that doesn't really exist anywhere else

No doubt, but that has everything to do with the way the media portrays organized labour.

Recent polls show that 65% of American workers would join a union if they could. And that's with almost no media presence.

[Smokey D]

When does the right of union members to hold cushy jobs surpass the right of everyone to hold any job?

[Danish]

When does the right of union members to hold cushy jobs surpass the right of everyone to hold any job?

Um, you're implying that there is a trade-off between good jobs and bad jobs, which is a total fallacy. Everyone deserves a good job, and the only sure way to get there is by joining a union in your own workplace.

[Smokey D]

Nah man. I'm talking about efficiency wage theory ie, employers pay some people more so they can employ people less.

[Danish]

Nah man. I'm talking about efficiency wage theory ie, employers pay some people more so they can employ people less.

Yea, and that works great for employers. What a lot of companies have done -- this is cross-sectoral as well -- is maintain a very small "core" of permanent employees while contracting the rest of the work, that used to be done by workers with benefits, out to temporary employment agencies who pay very, very little. Or like in the manufacturing industry, with the advent of "horizontal integration".

So employers are making a killing, while workers suffer. From an economics perspective, this is a great thing. But from a workers' perspective, it's class war.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, but that's what unions are about as well.

By restricting entry to members, they can charge higher wages.

Why should we accept it from unions and not employers, and can it become a problem?

[Danish]

Yeah, but that's what unions are about as well.

By restricting entry to members, they can charge higher wages.

Why should we accept it from unions and not employers, and can it become a problem?

No no no!

Ok, so in the history of American labour, there are two main schools of thought: craft unionism and industrial unionism. Craft unionism, also known as Gomperism after former AFL president Samuel Gompers, looks at things as you describe. Gomperism is primarily concerned with establishing respectability for skilled workers; they would only organize skilled workers, and only into their union (ie. painters into the Painters' Union, coopers into the Coopers' Union, etc.). This was the dominant form of unionism in the US up until the 1930s, after which industrial unionism came to dominate. However, many craft unions still exist, and their politics haven't changed much.

Industrial unionism, on the other, is totally different. Industrial unions will organize any workers, regardless of skill or trade. It seeks working class emancipation. American industrial unionism originally manifested in organizations such as the Holy and Noble Order of the Knights of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World, and later in the Congress of Industrial Organizations. So CIO unions, established in the 1930s, made the breakthroughs that won working people rights. These unions, like the UAW and the Steelworkers, will organize workers of any classification, in any industry, in any sector. For them, it's about inclusion. Instead of trying to limit access to labour markets, they try to take wages and benefits out of the competitive equation by trying to organize everyone.

Check out Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement by Rick Fantasia and Kim Voss.

[Smokey D]

But higher wages, in themselves, drive people out of the labour market. If union penetration is high (and consequentely labour costs), then there is less incentive for the employers to hire new people. This is especially true if the union workers are good at their job.

So even if unions are inclusive to workers in the industry, potential employees can lose out. Supply, demand and market equilibrium and all that jazz.

[Danish]

But higher wages, in themselves, drive people out of the labour market. If union penetration is high (and consequentely labour costs), then there is less incentive for the employers to hire new people. This is especially true if the union workers are good at their job.

So even if unions are inclusive to workers in the industry, potential employees can lose out. Supply, demand and market equilibrium and all that jazz.

Ah yes, that's right. You're an economics guy ;).

There's no dispute here that having unionized workers within a so-called "free" labour market is going to distort the price of labour. In general, the higher the density rate in a country, the higher the non-union wage as well. In the labour movement, we cite this as a reason why unions are good for all workers. Like, workers at Toyota and Honda plants in Ontario get paid fairly well, but it's a decision made by management to try to keep the union out.

But if high density rate necessarily lead to low job creation, how do you explain Denmark and Sweden? Or even Canada, for that matter?

[Smokey D]

There's no dispute here that having unionized workers within a so-called "free" labour market is going to distort the price of labour. In general, the higher the density rate in a country, the higher the non-union wage as well. In the labour movement, we cite this as a reason why unions are good for all workers. Like, workers at Toyota and Honda plants in Ontario get paid fairly well, but it's a decision made by management to try to keep the union out

I'm not disputing that unions have a place. I'm just asking at what point do individual worker rights become subordinate to group worker rights.


But if high density rate necessarily lead to low job creation, how do you explain Denmark and Sweden? Or even Canada, for that matter?

I wouldn't say anything other than to point out that economies are incredibly complex and attempting to reduce anything to single factors is probably not going to get us very far.

For example, I could point out that NZ and the US both have very low union density, and very low unemployment rates as well. At the same time, France and Germany have high union density and high (but admittedly dropping) unemployment. What other things could factor into the equation? I'm not sure, but standard economic theory is that higher wages, up to a point, drive out other workers.

But then, there is also evidence that wage floors can be good for unemployment figures, so I dunno. My argument is speculative, not empirical. If there union density does aversely affect other workers, should we be concerned?

Also, just checking some facts, Sweden has unemployment around 8.4%. Hardly indicative of good labour management.

[Danish]

I'm not disputing that unions have a place. I'm just asking at what point do individual worker rights become subordinate to group worker rights.

Those rights are one-in-the-same.

I wouldn't say anything other than to point out that economies are incredibly complex and attempting to reduce anything to single factors is probably not going to get us very far.

For example, I could point out that NZ and the US both have very low union density, and very low unemployment rates as well. At the same time, France and Germany have high union density and high (but admittedly dropping) unemployment. What other things could factor into the equation? I'm not sure, but standard economic theory is that higher wages, up to a point, drive out other workers.

But then, there is also evidence that wage floors can be good for unemployment figures, so I dunno. My argument is speculative, not empirical. If there union density does aversely affect other workers, should we be concerned?

Also, just checking some facts, Sweden has unemployment around 8.4%. Hardly indicative of good labour management.

I agree in principle that there are more factors at play than we're talking about. I don't think we can really get to the bottom of this here, but I think this demonstrates well the debate that goes on between our respective sides.

But I would like to point out two things. First, in Sweden and Denmark they realize that it is unlikely for a worker to stay at one job -- or even one profession -- for their entire working life. They emphasize income security and highly-accessible training and education during periods of unemployment, thus resulting in a labour market that not only protects the social rights of citizens, but is highly flexible and competitive.

And secondly, unemployment rate is far from the only indicator of labour market performance (though it is the one focused on by economists). I would argue that underemployment rate is equally, if not more, important.

[Smokey D]

Those rights are one-in-the-same.

So what of the scab who takes the place of a striking worker in order to feed his family?


But I would like to point out two things. First, in Sweden and Denmark they realize that it is unlikely for a worker to stay at one job -- or even one profession -- for their entire working life. They emphasize income security and highly-accessible training and education during periods of unemployment, thus resulting in a labour market that not only protects the social rights of citizens, but is highly flexible and competitive.

Yes, I agree. The Scandinavian model is definitely very efficient. I don't know enough about its particular capital-labour composition to know whether it could be transfered to other countries, though.


And secondly, unemployment rate is far from the only indicator of labour market performance (though it is the one focused on by economists). I would argue that underemployment rate is equally, if not more, important.

How are you using underemployment?

Do you mean labour not using the skills they have or do you mean labour working fewer hours than they should?

[AA-12]

Oh, I agree, but what I want to know is: How the hell are they "keeping me free"???

To be fair, if there wasn't a military we either wouldn't be around or wouldn't be free.

[Mr. Ron]

To be fair, if there wasn't a military we either wouldn't be around or wouldn't be free.

I know....I'm talking about the guys in Iraq.

[M3LL0NC0LL13]

I haven't read the thread, but I always say that I don't support the troops. No one forces you into the military. I do have a little bit of sympathy for the person who joins in an attempt to get money for college, but you don't have to kill for money. there's nothing wrong with working at mcdonald's for a few years until you earn the money. From my experience, the kids who join are very eager to "kill them towel-heads". I have no idea why you'd support someone like that.

[lfantwister]

there's nothing wrong with working at mcdonald's for a few years until you earn the money. From my experience, the kids who join are very eager to "kill them towel-heads".

it would take more than a few years at mcdonalds to get through school...
plus, its a new experience, kids that join are typically young and naive and looking for adventure. and money. their infusion with racism and killing people comes later, from what i can tell

[M3LL0NC0LL13]

it would take more than a few years at mcdonalds to get through school...
plus, its a new experience, kids that join are typically young and naive and looking for adventure. and money. their infusion with racism and killing people comes later, from what i can tell

either way, there's financial aid and stuff like that.

[lfantwister]

which only helps so much..

[M3LL0NC0LL13]

which only helps so much..

true, but there should be other ways to get money for college. you shouldn't have to kill other people to get an education.

[Reaganista]

most of the guys i knew who joined the army joined because they believe the **** that sean hannity says like 5 out of 7
two of em joined cause they were poor
not that that's a representative sample since most of the people i knew were from pretty financially secure families and whatnot

[Mr. Ron]

most of the guys i knew who joined the army joined because they believe the **** that sean hannity says like 5 out of 7
two of em joined cause they were poor
not that that's a representative sample since most of the people i knew were from pretty financially secure families and whatnot

ew ew ew ew ew ew

[AA-12]

I know....I'm talking about the guys in Iraq.

Ah, alright. I'm not fully against ever going to Iraq but we should be trying our best to get out of the mess right now. Afghanistan is a different story.

[M3LL0NC0LL13]

most of the guys i knew who joined the army joined because they believe the **** that sean hannity says like 5 out of 7


those are the ones I don't feel sorry for.

[Reaganista]

well i guess that works out cause they dont really want you to feel sorry for them

[Mr. Ron]

Tway, do you support the troops


I must know

[Reaganista]

no i hate the troops

[Mr. Ron]

ok.

[Dr Hooch]

From what I read, the American government are real bastards aout paying for your college even after you join the army. For some dumb reason you have to put down a deposit.

[Babble]

most of the guys i knew who joined the army joined because they believe the **** that sean hannity says like 5 out of 7
two of em joined cause they were poor
not that that's a representative sample since most of the people i knew were from pretty financially secure families and whatnot

hmmm..most of the people I knew joined because they sucked at college

[Danish]

Research has been done on this. Why doesn't someone look for it?

[Reaganista]

im anti-empiricism