Young White Men Without College Are Dropping Out Of Work Force

[Loren Pechtel]

Which becomes very unfair when she legitimately doesn't know.

DNA test perhaps?

Of course--but if she legitimately doesn't know who the father is (hookup, rape etc) DNA isn't going to help.

 

[Toni]

Working only within your job is not specific to union jobs. It can be a serious issue of licensure and legality. In my last job, by law and a host of regulations, I was only allowed to perform testing and other tasks for which I was specifically trained to do. If I performed tests I was not trained and. Certified to do, the tests would be invalid ( huge waste of money and resources and valuable patient samples) and the lab could have have lost its licenses, faced a number of serious penalties, and more. This is not a case of unions but of important regulations.

That's a separate case--if you're not capable of the job you certainly don't do it.

Not that I need to justify myself to the likes of you but I frequently worked above and beyond, working longer hours or worse shifts, performing extra tests and other tasks as necessary to ensure quick and accurate results for patients. But only within parameters of what I was trained to do.

In some union jobs, overstepping your job can mean that something is not done correctly—or that a different work unit loses positions.

"Work unit loses positions"--in other words, the union is forcing the company to be overstaffed because they aren't willing to be flexible. This is a big part of the hatred for unions.

And you get things like what I read about happening in New York. They figured out a skyscraper had a serious engineering problem. Fortunately, it involved an unlikely weather situation, it was safe to continue using the building while they figured out how to reinforce it, they installed strain gauges to sound the alarm if the winds decided to blow in exactly the wrong way. To keep from causing a panic they had brought in some electricians from elsewhere to wire it. One day the system quit working--the union figured out they hadn't done it so they destroyed it with no idea of what it was for.

No: not trained ( as in not documented to having been rigorously trained) is not ‘incapable.’ It’s not trained.

Bad management treats workers as though they are machines that can be turned off and on as needed, not people. They expect their workforce to be immediately ready to perform whatever task they want—when they need it, even if it requires overtime on short/no notice, over weeks and into months. And then when the crunch is over, they want to lay people off —and cry when they can’t get trained workers back at the drop of the hat. By underpaying their workforce and keeping them on an unpredictable schedule, they seek to keep their workers dependent on whatever they choose to offer, In other words, they expect their workforce to compensate for management’s inability to plan ahead. Management owes its loyalties to stockholders and not on a relationship their build with their workers ( and customers).

Good management cultivates a skilled workforce and supports them in developing their skills and achieving goals. By adequately compensating their workforce and by providing a safe and supportive environment, they are able to retain workers, and save the costs and unpredictability of needing to recruit and train replacements as dissatisfied workers leave.

 

[RVonse]

Unions need to be advocates for workers’ rights, including adequate compensation.

I guess the key word there is "adequate." Too many of the union positions in places I worked were vastly over rewarded.

Everything is relative. Compared to a UAW auto worker the average wage is closer to a McDonalds worker. But the problem is not that the UAW has too high of wages, the problem is that there are too many other jobs not being paid enough. Those union jobs are not really overpaid to what a middle class living needs to be. What the workers at the lower end usually do is try to live on less instead of baraining for more. Then they complain about the union workers, not so much out of greed but envy.

 

[RVonse]

anything that makes the average American poorer reduces income inequality.

I don't believe you are really that math-challenged.
Turning the marginally poor into the totally destitute (the apparent mission of the extreme right) does not in any way reduce income inequality.

The U.S. median income is $31,000. The World Bank's standard for total destitution is $2,000. Your argument appears to assume there aren't any income levels between $31,000 and $2,000.

Why would anyone think making Americans poorer improves worldwide inequality is even remotely relevant to the OP about young men dropping out of the US labor force?

Men are dropping out of the jobs because they perceive the wages are not worth their effort.

If I'm working for a company, if they are paying me to work for them then that's what I should do. Your response here strikes me as coming from someone who thinks they can sit on their duff, be unprofitable for most of their day on the job, but somehow think they should still get a decent paycheck for it, but is experiencing some guilt today. And that's precisely why unions have lost their power. Every employee has the primary "job specification" of working safely and profitably for his employer. If they don't they are only hurting themselves as evidenced by failing union influence over recent decades. It's really just that simple.

It can also go the other way though when an employer fires people and then expects the smaller workforce left to do the vacated jobs for the same pay. Which is why a (normally 3 year) contract is made and both management and labor are expected to do their respective part. Neither side should be expected to do more or less than they agreed. No different than entering into a lease agreement with a landlord and then expecting more than the written contract.

 

[Bomb#20]

You have made a caricature of the issue. There are nuanced discussions of the harms of extreme income inequality which you dismiss with "hurt feelings about their social status."

Oh please. Exactly how much nuance did you put into "I forget: Does your Ilk think income inequality is good or bad?"?

I've acknowledged that the dilemma you pose is a real one with no easy answers. But where do we go from here? Form a MAMI political party? Make America Mediocre Instead.

The easy answer is that more wealth for Burundians is good, more wealth for poor Americans is good, more wealth for middle-income Americans is good, more wealth for rich Americans is good, more wealth is good. Income inequality per se is neither good nor bad; reducing income inequality by making someone richer is good and reducing income inequality by making someone poorer is bad. That's an answer we can build on without making America mediocre. When you say there are no easy answers, you're saying you disagree with that easy answer. If you disagree with that easy answer -- if you think income inequality per se is bad for some nuanced reason that justifies "improving" it by making someone poorer -- then if you stop applying that reason when the "someone" is your ingroup it's incumbent on you to explain why.

 

[bilby]

Unions work for a while but most union companies end up destroyed, eaten by non-union competitors. Pretty much the only unions you see left are situations where there's a big reason preventing competition.

You misspelled "Shut down by right wing ideological governments at the behest of non-union businesses who don't want to be forced into decent pay or conditions".

Explain how it's shut down by governments.

The enactment of the Ridley Plan by the Thatcher government was a deliberate exemplary punishment of the British union movement, in which the entire British coal mining industry was deliberately destroyed in an ideologically driven show of anti-union force by the hard right faction of the Conservative Party.

The competitor was European (mainly German) coal, which was more expensive than British coal at the point of use (British power plants), but cheaper at major European trading centres, particularly the Netherlands port cities. The use of Antwerp and Rotterdam prices in government reports to give the impression that British mines were inefficient and uncompetitive was a key propaganda tactic.

This was a deliberate government strategy to not only destroy the NUM, but to massively weaken the entire trades union movement, in support of non-union businesses, with an entirely ideological goal of creating an economy with lower wages and poorer conditions, which was believed by its proponents to be the key to increasing GDP growth while lowering inflation. It directly led to an economic boom in London and the South East, where the bosses lived and worked, while creating mass unemployment in the North and Midlands, and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, from which those regions have still not recovered (long after the economic "miracle" in London collapsed into recession a scant four years after it was initiated).

It was a hugely violent situation, in which police were repeatedly used to initiate violence, which was then portrayed by the media as having being caused by the striking workers. Police were brought in from London for this purpose, because the local coppers refused to attack their neighbours. The entire apparatus of government was employed to ensure victory, from MI5 who spied on unionists, to the Department of Social Security, who "mistakenly" withheld payments to the families of striking workers, so as to worsen their already severe financial hardship.

The level of hatred for Margaret Thatcher, even after her death, in the North of England, has to be experienced to be believed. She's certainly deserving of it.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don’t really care much, either way.

You may not care about unions and/or whether the middle class that can make a fair wage. But if you don't care about them, then you dont care about yourself either. Because eventually if no one has anything except the top .001% you will very likely be living in poverty and squalor just like everyone else. There will be nothing left but unemployed tent cities and mansions for the rich who own all their production overseas.

So if you have a better solution to raise and keep good wages for a strong middle class (other than unions).....Im listening.

WT actual Fuck makes you think I do not care very very very much about unions being able to continue to represent the needs and rights of workers? I don’t even know where you clipped that from.

You obviously did not read any of my actual posts. Par for the course.

Yeah, that was a pretty crappy thing for RVonse to do, take that quote snippet and completely change the context.

RVonse, you really owe Toni an apology.*


*Not said with admin hat on.

 

[Tigers!]

Unions work for a while but most union companies end up destroyed, eaten by non-union competitors. Pretty much the only unions you see left are situations where there's a big reason preventing competition.

You misspelled "Shut down by right wing ideological governments at the behest of non-union businesses who don't want to be forced into decent pay or conditions".

Explain how it's shut down by governments.

The enactment of the Ridley Plan by the Thatcher government was a deliberate exemplary punishment of the British union movement, in which the entire British coal mining industry was deliberately destroyed in an ideologically driven show of anti-union force by the hard right faction of the Conservative Party.

The competitor was European (mainly German) coal, which was more expensive than British coal at the point of use (British power plants), but cheaper at major European trading centres, particularly the Netherlands port cities. The use of Antwerp and Rotterdam prices in government reports to give the impression that British mines were inefficient and uncompetitive was a key propaganda tactic.

This was a deliberate government strategy to not only destroy the NUM, but to massively weaken the entire trades union movement, in support of non-union businesses, with an entirely ideological goal of creating an economy with lower wages and poorer conditions, which was believed by its proponents to be the key to increasing GDP growth while lowering inflation. It directly led to an economic boom in London and the South East, where the bosses lived and worked, while creating mass unemployment in the North and Midlands, and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, from which those regions have still not recovered (long after the economic "miracle" in London collapsed into recession a scant four years after it was initiated).

It was a hugely violent situation, in which police were repeatedly used to initiate violence, which was then portrayed by the media as having being caused by the striking workers. Police were brought in from London for this purpose, because the local coppers refused to attack their neighbours. The entire apparatus of government was employed to ensure victory, from MI5 who spied on unionists, to the Department of Social Security, who "mistakenly" withheld payments to the families of striking workers, so as to worsen their already severe financial hardship.

The level of hatred for Margaret Thatcher, even after her death, in the North of England, has to be experienced to be believed. She's certainly deserving of it.

You make it sound like Scargill and the NUM had no part in their own demise. They were very prepared to stop coal being mined, shipped and caused great damage to the British economy. This was a part of a power struggle within the NUM and the wider TUC union movement as to who would be in control. Whilst the Ridley Plan was a scorched earth policy and was foolish in its implementation something had to be done.
All these anti-Thatcherite people did will not face the question "Why was Thatcher elected in 1979" squarely. She did not win in a vacuum or by trickery. The voters were presented with a stark choice Scargill et al or Thatcher. They made their choice. The alternative was considered much worse.

 

[RVonse]

I don’t really care much, either way.

You may not care about unions and/or whether the middle class that can make a fair wage. But if you don't care about them, then you dont care about yourself either. Because eventually if no one has anything except the top .001% you will very likely be living in poverty and squalor just like everyone else. There will be nothing left but unemployed tent cities and mansions for the rich who own all their production overseas.

So if you have a better solution to raise and keep good wages for a strong middle class (other than unions).....Im listening.

WT actual Fuck makes you think I do not care very very very much about unions being able to continue to represent the needs and rights of workers? I don’t even know where you clipped that from.

You obviously did not read any of my actual posts. Par for the course.

Yeah, that was a pretty crappy thing for RVonse to do, take that quote snippet and completely change the context.

RVonse, you really owe Toni an apology.*


*Not said with admin hat on.

My apology to Toni, it appears most of the text from the post I was responding to was really from Metaphor and I got confused who said what because of all the lines. I stand corrected.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yup, sounds like a few mommy coddled young guys. I don't see how that makes them better prospects for relationships.

That's partly the propogandistic flavor of the reporting, and to some extent the study itself, trying to make it sound unreasonable for people to refuse work without fair compensation, and introducing the red herring of the marriagibility factor to stoke people's existing prejudices concerning unattached young men.

That's entirely possible. But adults can't just sit somewhere and play video games or sleep all day without someone else covering the check. Even working crappy jobs gives you experience to take to a better job.

 

[ZiprHead]

And you get things like what I read about happening in New York. They figured out a skyscraper had a serious engineering problem. Fortunately, it involved an unlikely weather situation, it was safe to continue using the building while they figured out how to reinforce it, they installed strain gauges to sound the alarm if the winds decided to blow in exactly the wrong way. To keep from causing a panic they had brought in some electricians from elsewhere to wire it. One day the system quit working--the union figured out they hadn't done it so they destroyed it with no idea of what it was for.

This sounds like a Loren story. You know, the kind where when the details come out it's a lot differant than the description.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don’t really care much, either way.

You may not care about unions and/or whether the middle class that can make a fair wage. But if you don't care about them, then you dont care about yourself either. Because eventually if no one has anything except the top .001% you will very likely be living in poverty and squalor just like everyone else. There will be nothing left but unemployed tent cities and mansions for the rich who own all their production overseas.

So if you have a better solution to raise and keep good wages for a strong middle class (other than unions).....Im listening.

WT actual Fuck makes you think I do not care very very very much about unions being able to continue to represent the needs and rights of workers? I don’t even know where you clipped that from.

You obviously did not read any of my actual posts. Par for the course.

Yeah, that was a pretty crappy thing for RVonse to do, take that quote snippet and completely change the context.

RVonse, you really owe Toni an apology.*


*Not said with admin hat on.

My apology to Toni, it appears most of the text from the post I was responding to was really from Metaphor and I got confused who said what because of all the lines. I stand corrected.

Thanks.

 

[bilby]

The voters were presented with a stark choice Scargill et al or Thatcher. They made their choice. The alternative was considered much worse.

...by middle class Home Counties office workers who weren't being defamed, starved, and beaten for having the wrong political opinions.

The North and Scotland voted overwhelmingly against Thatcher. That London and the South East outnumbered them is hardly something for which they only had themselves to blame.

The voters were presented with stark propaganda, and those far enough from the reality to believe the lies, or to benefit from the political consequences, outnumbered those who were going to suffer.