Unions Suffer Latest Defeat in Midwest With Signing of Wisconsin Measure

[WiseOne]

How exactly?  Do you mean women who work part time, and take time off for maternity leave?

Part time work should have been factored into the numbers, since that's obviously not equal to a full time job.  As far as maternity leave, I personally take the non-PC view that it should come out of vacation time or be unpaid.  However, if a woman has two children over a 30 year career the corresponding maternity leave would account for only 1.6% of her time.  That doesn't add up to the salary differences that have been documented.

Certainly this is not comparable to getting an extra two months off every year, or an extra 20 years of free pensions and medical insurance.

[LC475]

Personally, I do understand the conditions that led to unions being organized in the first place,

Do you?  You weren't there.  So, someone has told you a story about how things were back then.  I wonder whose story it is that you have bought into?

[moda0306]

WiseOne,

It's really Econ. 101... or maybe 102 (not trying to be condescending... it was literally my 2nd econ class that I learned a ton of things that started to revolutionize the way I thought about economic relations... very good prof...)

Prices (like compensation) come as a result of bargaining between two parties.  However, there are certain rigidities in REAL markets that can manipulate how prices are established in what would otherwise be a different "demand curve."  If one side of the bargaining arrangement is an oligopoly (or largely made up of them... as well as some monopolies in there), then this gives them a lower "elasticity" of the price of labor as the supply of labor goes down.  Essentially, they have far more bargaining power against individuals.  This is also what makes monopolies so dangerous to consumers.

So what individuals would do would form the same things rich people will form... "groups" that help them bargain better economically.  For the capital interests, these are called corporations (corporations do other things, but it also lets capital interests pool their resources to build a stronger bargaining chip).  For employees, these are called "unions."  It allows them to be at equal bargaining footing with the corporation.

If you can imagine breathing in coal as you work next to your 10 year old son, you might imagine the motivations of people to unionize back in the "good ol' days."  Obviously, as with any groups, unions come with bureaucratic BS, lies, self-serving management, etc.  But that occurs in corporations, governments, organized religion, and even friggin' sports teams.  That's the drawback of the "group trap."  It becomes an animal of its own, and animals need to eat.

[LC475]

Personally, I do understand the conditions that led to unions being organized in the first place,

Do you?  You weren't there.  So, someone has told you a story about how things were back then.  I wonder whose story it is that you have bought into?

Sorry, this came off as jerky, I think.  I'm just saying that the interesting thing about history is that somewhere between the vast majority and absolutely all of our political opinions usually come from what we think we know about history.  What "history has shown us."  The other interesting thing about history is that none of us were there.  And so we really don't know what happened.

Do you think this sounds like a ripe opportunity for someone with an agenda to come and paint you a somewhat biased picture of history?  Yep, it does.  You would be very skeptical of the contents of a textbook published by Fox News, written by Rush Limbaugh, called "The Way Things Really Were," and rightfully so.  You would probably be a good deal less skeptical of a textbook published for government schools, written by government-employed professors, and called "The American Journey, Independence to 1914".  We are all less skeptical than we should be of sources that seem to confirm our own biases.  Myself included.  I am not going to be nearly skeptical enough of a historical book or article or claim that comes from someone I see as "on my side" or "reasonable".  And that doesn't lead to a good understanding of the real truth.  We need to be aware of the limitations of our historical understanding.  We need to keep in mind that we were not actually there.  We need to be open-minded enough to realize that there are historical narratives different from the ones that we have been exposed to, and that there may be some truth to them as well.

[Libertarian666]

How exactly?  Do you mean women who work part time, and take time off for maternity leave?

Part time work should have been factored into the numbers, since that's obviously not equal to a full time job.  As far as maternity leave, I personally take the non-PC view that it should come out of vacation time or be unpaid.  However, if a woman has two children over a 30 year career the corresponding maternity leave would account for only 1.6% of her time.  That doesn't add up to the salary differences that have been documented.

Certainly this is not comparable to getting an extra two months off every year, or an extra 20 years of free pensions and medical insurance.

No, it is not just maternity leave. Female doctors work far fewer hours over their working lifetime than male doctors:

"Finding a doctor could soon be even harder than paying for one. Various studies have projected a shortfall of anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 physicians in the U.S. relative to demand by 2020, and the Institute of Medicine, a federal advisory body, just reported that in a mere three years senior citizens will be facing a health-care workforce that is "too small and woefully unprepared."

This looming shortage is forcing into the open a controversy that has been cautiously debated in hospitals and medical practices for some time: Are women doctors part of the problem? It's not the abilities of female doctors that are in question. It's that study after study has found women doctors tend to work 20% to 25% fewer hours than their male counterparts."

(from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/200 ... en-doctors)

[MachineGhost]

Women need time to deal with their children.  I'm pretty sure Mr. Mom's work less hours too.

[WiseOne]

My guess is that the 20-25% fewer hours statistic includes women doctors who work part time.  I know several who do that.  The women I know who work full time work just as long and hard as the men do.

There are many reasons for the projected physician shortages which weigh far more heavily than women choosing to work fewer hours.  A big reason is the dramatically increasing number of patients sick with metabolic-syndrome related conditions.  Another reason is that the number of residency slots are fixed by Medicaid.  Expanding the slots, though, means opening up new medical schools, which is not a quick process by any means.

From my own observations, there's yet another reason for the shortage:  doctors opting out of traditional clinical practice.  We've talked about that in other threads :-).  And most of the residency graduates at my institution aim for hospitalist jobs, where they work shifts, don't carry a beeper, and don't have to deal with outpatient clinics.  They've seen what it's like and they want no part of it.