Socialist Seattle Pol Off Deep End

I'm fine with others defining it as they'd like. I'm just trying to figure out why Boeing's offer was "wrong," "bad," "unreasonable," or however someone wants to negatively describe it. From what I'm reading it sounds reasonable. From what I've known of them in the past I have thought them to generally be a good company to work for. In other words, I'm looking for specifics. Or is this just a knee-jerk, "big businesses are all wicked and bad" response? If it is that, a good discussion/debate is doubtful.
 
That's why I think the system is atavistic and iniquitous and we should be seeking something better for our species, instead of just being "willing to play [the] game" and allowing ourselves and our communities to be held hostage to the profit-crazed whims of an uncaring oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Looks like the old Patriarch of the West agrees with me:

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems."
Click to expand...
 
BedellBrave said:
I wasn't asking you if you got ace's point - I assumed you did. I was just stating that your post was beside the point. But to answer your question Julio, yes, that was what I took ace's point to have been particularly in light of the title of the thread and him not stating otherwise.

But as to the implication, warranted or not, that you drew, I ask, what's wrong with Boeing's conduct in this case? If memory serves me correctly from my days interacting a bit with Boeing, I always got the impression they were a good company to work for. Course that was years ago and only anecdotal.
Click to expand...

This deal in particular? It doesn't seem bad, considering. The union had a pretty reasonable case in front of the NLRB before, though, and that's part of the context of this dispute.

Of course, part of the context of "considering" is that the playing field is, and has been for decades, tilted against labor.

Of course, business is business. There's nothing dirty about the deal Boeing offered. I mean, it's a dog, but Boeing is holding most of the cards—but that kind of speaks to the point of my post. My point, as I'm sure you know, was about what we take for granted. The OP seems to take for granted that the game, as it were, is not rigged . . . or perhaps that the WAY the game is rigged represents the natural order of things, rather than being a product of intense (and arguably immoral) design.
 
Julio3000 said:
How do YOU feel about it?
Click to expand...

About unfettered capitalism? Or about the pontiff's 84 page document?

I haven't read the document and honestly, I likely won't. Not enough time to do everything. I do want to be cautious about judging it completely through a secondary news article.

That said, I have some sympathy with a critique of capitalism. Not sure exactly though what he means by "unfettered." Is there such an animal? Also, I think every economic system in a fallen world will be open to critique. And that his concern about "unequal distribution of wealth" is a concern that is applicable even to communistic systems as they actually work out in reality.

I also wonder what his solution is? My suspicion is that it involves more than what your run of the mill anti-capitalists envision. I suspect the Pope understands that hearts need to be changed by supernatural grace.

But let me also say that I agree with the Pope that the church should be known for its commitment to Micah 6:8. And that the RR often isn't sufficiently, imho. Though if my own anecdotal evidence is any indication, that is changing, for there is a growing concern for holistic ministry.
 
Julio3000 said:
My point, as I'm sure you know, was about what we take for granted. The OP seems to take for granted that the game, as it were, is not rigged . . . or perhaps that the WAY the game is rigged represents the natural order of things, rather than being a product of intense (and arguably immoral) design.
Click to expand...

Boeing holds the card because they own the property. If the workers in Seattle don't like their terms, there are other capable workers in other cities and countries who are perfectly willing to accept those terms. Should Boeing be forced to remain in Seattle and give the workers what they want at the expense of workers in South Carolina? I'm not sure how else the "game" should be "rigged." I know that people taking over private property that isn't theirs to live out some utopian fantasy isn't the answer. (Ironically, the workers would need someone to be the executives to successfully carry out that idea, the very kind of people the socialist politician feels are not needed).
 
acesfull86 said:
Boeing holds the card because they own the property. If the workers in Seattle don't like their terms, there are other capable workers in other cities and countries who are perfectly willing to accept those terms. Should Boeing be forced to remain in Seattle and give the workers what they want at the expense of workers in South Carolina? I'm not sure how else the "game" should be "rigged." I know that people taking over private property that isn't theirs to live out some utopian fantasy isn't the answer. (Ironically, the workers would need someone to be the executives to successfully carry out that idea, the very kind of people the socialist politician feels are not needed).
Click to expand...

So instead of the utopian fantasy, let's just cheer for the race to the bottom, like there's some virtue in it. Cool.

I read the same Matt Yglesias bit that you posted earlier. I agree with it, for the most part. Is her "proposal" unworkable? Sure it is. On the other hand, it's a perspective of the (genuine) left, and I think there's a place for it in our discourse. I hope that she, benighted though she may be, gathers enough support to be scary and push the conversation back towards the middle.

The machinists are choosing between X% of something, or 100% of nothing. I don't envy them the choice. A $10,000 signing bonus is peanuts in comparison to the benefits the union is being asked to give up. Let's not pretend that Boeing is being generous. If I were a person working on this pay scale—and bear in mind it's only the older workers who are at the top end of the scale here—I might be a little frosty being asked to give up a defined pension and accept 1% COLA every 2 years when I see the Boeing CEO's compensation increase 20% last year, and HIS $3M/year pension, even after the rollout of the 787 was such a disaster. Oh, but they're fungible and he isn't? I think that's a questionable assumption.

Should Boeing be forced to remain in Seattle and give the workers what they want at the expense of workers in South Carolina?

No. But that isn't to say that there aren't ways for the equation to be balanced differently, or that one cannot reasonably object to Boeing's conduct. There was a thread a while back about how large German companies are required to allot a certain number of seats on their boards to representatives of labor. That might make for a less zero-sum, oppositional situation.

Aces, do you think it would be good for the folks in Charleston if the the machinist's union dies on the vine? Right now, the company is motivated to treat the Charleston workers well because they don't want the union to get any leverage organizing the plant.
 
BedellBrave said:
In and of itself I'm not sure what is wrong with that pay scale.
Click to expand...

I'd say it depends on what job you're doing and where you live. It's worth noting that the biggest issues in play are benefits, not pay, and the pay-related issues have to do with rate of advancement and COLAs.

FWIW, I think it's unrealistic for them to expect to keep the defined-benefit pensions. That's not to say that I disagree with their fighting for them.
 
I guess we'll all cheer for our entries in the race to the bottom then. Charlotte! Charleston! Nagoya! Guangzhou Industrial Zone!
 
You can look at it that way if you'd like. I look at it as 8,000 good jobs in a region that could use a good industrial component following the demise of the textile industry. These would be better than textile mill jobs. Better than a ton of other jobs. Certainly better than unemployment. Look down on it if you'd like as you cheer for a heavier-handed, governmentally involved, industrial system that gives you your Utopia.
 
Bedell, just curios, what did think about Rick Santorum's comparing himself and his fights against Obamcare to Nelson Mandela's struggles against apartheid??? I believe knowing the kind of person you are that I already know the answer to this, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
 
BedellBrave said:
Par for the course with Santorum. Idiotic on multiple levels.
Click to expand...

:rock: Great post Bedell, how much longer till the Repubs reclaim their souls and kicks these effing idiots (on a Biblical scale by the way) to the curb? Conservative America still has a lot of say, I just wish they quit trying to say it through these numb nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top