« The Conflicted History of the Wave | Main | No More Ethics Truce? »

March 09, 2007

AFCSME

This is the clearest distillation of the union ethos I've ever seen:

March 9, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

OMG that's funny! Is that an official union video? It is sooooo NYC. No weak knees there, for sure.

Maybe we are way overdue for some militant liberalism that doesn't take crap from the GOP abuse machine.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 9, 2007 5:25:21 PM

So NYC except for the fake NY accent ;).

Obviously a voiceover job, but reasonably funny.

Posted by: sidereal | Mar 9, 2007 5:37:02 PM

From YouTube: "This is a rare gem. This was a PSA that the voice-over person decided to record an "alternate" version of for fun. This comes from the archives of a local tv station. You won't find this anywhere."

Posted by: Mary | Mar 9, 2007 5:57:03 PM

By this clip, none of these services would be done without the union. More likely, the same services would be done, but at a lower cost to the taxpayers.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 9, 2007 6:02:44 PM

I think I actually agree with Fred, at least factually. Though as a matter of economic policy high wages are a damn good thing.

Posted by: Korha | Mar 9, 2007 6:09:57 PM

Maybe by illegal immigrants Fred... but I guess that's a whole other can of worms... ;)

I'm afraid though that the video does sum up the Unions, and the image problem that drives a lot of anti-union bias... A very patrician "My goodness, they do swear a lot don't they, and they dopn't seem very well educated..." I'm not sure anyone's come up with a good answer for that.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 9, 2007 6:23:16 PM

Okay, it was a joke. But it was an awesome joke with the best slogan ever.

We F*ckin' Work For You!

Posted by: Chris Andersen | Mar 9, 2007 6:37:23 PM

AFCSME Local 88 right here. That's damn funny and harder than any advocacy I've seen out of my local.

Posted by: Roamsedge | Mar 9, 2007 7:47:06 PM

Oh man, painful. The title on the post is mixed and I copied it right down. AFSCME. Damn.

Posted by: Roamsedge | Mar 9, 2007 7:50:12 PM

More likely, the same services would be done, but at a lower cost to the taxpayers.

The "middle class" is a function of UNIONS. UNIONS are what made the US what it is today. If the union employees didn't get that extra pay, they wouldn't be able to buy Fred's delicious ice cream ( Fred drives an ice cream truck and is pissed because his benefits are crappy). Keep ringing those bells Fred!!!

Posted by: fasteddie | Mar 9, 2007 7:55:29 PM

Illegal aliens are natural scabs. They work for less. One would think that those who wish to force labor costs and workers' wages up would not want the cheap illegal work force undercutting their efforts.

How's that working for ya'?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 9, 2007 8:55:11 PM

More likely, the same services would be done, but at a lower cost to the taxpayers.

Yes, I believe that is Wal-Mart's strategy, with their reputation for excellent service and low-turnover among their professional staff.

Posted by: Constantine | Mar 9, 2007 9:38:27 PM

Wal-Mart delivers what their customers want....

You deliver what the workers want at the expense of the customers, in this case, the taxpayers.

I guess one must decide *who* the business exists to serve, the workers or the customers.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 9, 2007 10:22:08 PM

Wal-Mart delivers what their customers want

sigh. Fred, Wal-Mart has a specific mission. The government has a specific mission. If you think that the government's mission is to deliver low-cost, low-quality merchandise with a low-rent, part time, high-turnover staff, then clearly you view the mission of the government much differently that the rest of us.

Posted by: Constantine | Mar 9, 2007 10:55:38 PM

Fred Jones Troll,
Most illegals--at least the illegals most people talk about--are Latinos. That means Roman Catholic. You don't get any more pro-union than Catholics. Try learning something about this America country you purport to live in.

Posted by: Joe S. | Mar 9, 2007 11:11:33 PM

So....without the Unions, we wouldn't have civil service employees?

Posted by: DRR | Mar 9, 2007 11:35:42 PM

Why do repubelicans hate collective bargaining?

Posted by: paid vacation | Mar 10, 2007 3:34:43 AM

Alomst every boring, passed through a pre-screening advertisement has a version like that sitting under guard in a vault at the ad agency. Creative people do know what is really going on and end up delivering what their customer thinks it wants. think that unions would be better off being in your face a little more. Heck, I know union members who no longer know what their union has done for them.
Funny stuff.

Posted by: Hawise | Mar 10, 2007 8:35:24 AM

Saturday morning should really mean hit preview first!

Walmart's mission appears to be to make China strong.

Posted by: Hawise | Mar 10, 2007 8:37:25 AM

If you think that the government's mission is to deliver low-cost, low-quality merchandise with a low-rent, part time, high-turnover staff, then clearly you view the mission of the government much differently that the rest of us.

The government's mission should be to deliver the quality of services needed to the taxpayers (customers) at the best possible price.

If you think interjecting a layer organization between then whose sole interest has nothing to do with serving the taxpayer will help the government achieve this goal, you are mistaken.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 10, 2007 9:16:45 AM

Why do repubelicans hate collective bargaining?

Fred: I think I'll start a company and produce widgets. I have a way to manufacture a quality widget at a lower price than my competitors. My investors have put up the money for this in hopes of a return.

Dean-0: The employees think they should be paid more than market for their skills.

Fred: Really? How do they justify the higher wages? Will they produce more for me?

Dean-0: No. They just want it.....and they want other concessions, too, such as flex-time and 3 week paid vacations for all newcomers with 5 weeks after 1 year. Also, you should throw in free medical and dental. And if you don't cave in, we will threaten strike and shut you down.

Fred: If you shut down my business, you will be out of jobs.

Dean-0: We don't have that much skin in this game. We can find other jobs and other employers to bully. You, on the other hand, will lose all of your investment and will not be able to start over. You in or out?

Fred: None of this seems fair.
You will cost more but will not produce more than other workers would. The competative edge that I thought I had with my new manufacturing techniques will be more than offset by this artificial wage increase and benefit increases over and above market, erasing my profitability and the reason for going into business in the first place.

Dean-0: Whatever, dude. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!


Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 10, 2007 9:34:25 AM

What if Fred The Capitalist told his employees he was cutting their wages? What if he told them they could only take 10 minute breaks instead of 15, or that their health plan no longer covered dental, or if they couldn't file an official complaint about workplace safety?

All of the above are exercises of power by management which have an exceedingly long history.

Fred's story above details a relatively analogous exercise of power by labor. (I would auggest, actually, far more justifiable, but this is beside the point.) Fred finds it unjustifiable. I assume he is perfectly happy with the exercise of power by management as outlined. Really, it has nothing to do with justice for Fred, it has to do with the maintenance of the already-existing structures of economic power.

Posted by: DivGuy | Mar 10, 2007 10:46:07 AM

Wells: I make widgets. I just invested in new technology, so now my workers can make more widgets per hour than my competitors' workers can. This is awesome, 'cause I make more money while providing my products at a better price. Capitalism rules.

Used to be that my extra profits from increased productivity filtered down to the workers, expanding the middle class and allowing one high-school educated man to support a family, own a home, and maybe put his kids through college. I didn't want to pay my workers much, but the unions, which gave us the 40 hour work week, the weekend, ended child labor, and created workplace safety rules, made me pay a decent middle-class wage.

Not anymore!

Productivity growth has always been faster than wage growth, but since the seventies and early eighties (when those meddlesome unions were finally defanged) real wages for male high school graduates are completely flat or slightly lower while productivity has grown by leaps and bounds.

This is awesome for me, 'cause I'm getting richer and richer while my workers pay stays the same. I make more money off of their labor (all I do is front the money and make a few decisions) while they lose their healthcare.

Posted by: Wells. | Mar 10, 2007 11:09:04 AM

What if he told them they could only take 10 minute breaks instead of 15...

And what is the market standard in this industry....10 or 15? Make a difference when deciding if this is fair or not.

...or that their health plan no longer covered dental, or if they couldn't file an official complaint about workplace safety?

Does your competition provide these services to their employees? Good question that you didn't mention.

It seems that those who argue for unions are trying to fit a square peg though a round hole. Businesses, by definition (and law), exist to benefit primarily the owners. However, you argue from the standpoint that they are there primarily to benefit the workers.
If you wish to have an entity that exists primarily for the benefit of the workers, then you should create one and you will not always be in conflict with the owners. maybe the government could own the businesses.

Oh! I forgot, it's been done.....it's called the communism.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!


Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 10, 2007 12:25:03 PM

Right. Between ruthless anarcho-capitalism and full-blown communism exist no useful, actually-existing alterative models of management-labor power balancing.

Come on. The government intercedes in labor relations all the damn time. The idea that intercessions on behalf of a more just balance of power are equivalent to communism is ludicrous, utterly ahistorical - unless you want to call the united states a communist pseudo-republic.

Posted by: DivGuy | Mar 10, 2007 12:35:18 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.