Stupid (but sincere) Questions about the USA

[DVS]

I would add to the above that a right-to-work state has the effect of nearly completely suppressing the union, because as you point out, one doesn't HAVE to pay dues to get the benefit, so people don't sign-up.

My experience in my state- I was once a union per-apprentice iron-worker. I got to know union guys and what sort of jobs they went on and how they viewed things.

Basically, the only time the union guys were utilized was when (davis-bacon law?) union-scale wages were required in the always government projects. The thinking was, if you have to pay top dollar you might as well get actual union trained guys. Some of this stuff was dangerous (we had a fatality on my crew of less than a dozen) and the union guys who often rotated from state to state as work was available were very experienced and very competent.

In theory anyone could have worked on our crew, but as a practical matter other than us newbies that had to give out tribute to the union, they wouldn't trust and would not work with "scabs."...or for what they termed "scab companies" when between union-scale work.

So, generally, I doubt at least in the heavy construction, blue-collar type fields that anyone joins a union shop and goes very long without joining up if that is their path. But it definitely has the effect of pretty much eliminating unions in the private sector contracts.

The highly skilled, or dangerous stuff is usually going to be union because no one is going to take the risks training people for that. Your high-rise acrobats, your crane operators, a lot of electricians and AC guys are IBEW.

But service workers, clerks and the like? Non-existant unless the company straddles several states and has a company-wide union contract.

I'm not saying unions aren't necessary or valid in some cases. In my case, I was a member of Teamsters. I had previously worked in a union shop and when I quite, I got a withdrawal card. For those of you who don't know, a withdrawal card allows you to join the union again, if you ever find a Teamsters job. Those new to the union pay an initiation fee and it can be quite large, depending on the union. Back when I joined, long ago, the fee was $200. The withdrawal card is very important to get, when you quit a union job. If you don't have one, you have to pay the current initiation fee to rejoin the union.

Anyway, when I got this job, the company had just recently moved from a non-right to work state to a right to work state. They did this just to bust the union. When I got hired, the union steward asked for my withdrawal card, which I gave him. Somehow, it vanished and I was told I would have to pay the initiation fee to join the union or I could just not join the union and still benefit from the union wages.

I wanted my withdrawal card back, but nobody knew where it was or nobody was talking. Eventually, the union dropped out and the employer had accomplished what he had tried to do. But, because the union was pissed, they didn't give any of us a withdrawal card. The employer won, but everybody else really lost. I think the employer took my card.

 

[Que]

I'm not a huge fan of unions...not just because they disagree with my politics.

When I was young my dad ran some food processing plants in Louisianana. They were building a new one out in the middle of nowhere..(shorter farm to processing time...) in the middle of the project, pipe-fitters and electricians decided it was a good time to 're-negotiate" the terms of the contracts. Dad is kind of stubborn. He told them no, get back to work. They struck.

He brought in workers the back way across fields in school buses, while the union picketed the front gate. The plant opened on time.

My only "older woman" experience was with a striking TWA flight attendant during the whole Carl Icahn raid. I was a young man in a suit; she was working the carpet department to supplement her strike benefits. She looked like agent 99 who I always had had a crush on. On the weekends she would throw parties for what was then America West flight attendants on behalf of her union. We used to have long actually interesting discussions on unions. Was one of the few people I have found I disagree with completely in an productive and interesting way. These things devolve quickly I find. She left me with an understanding that there are people that really do join unions not just because they think it will bump their pay.

My last employer and I had a love hate relationship. In my case a union rep would have helped. I happened to meet a high level guy that offered to be my rabbi...then he retired. I toy with the idea of being a double agent for the unions that would love to get their hands on the biggest such property in America, in a right to work State. I am known for being vocal about how the unions that pre-dated my being here had killed the golden goose, and would be a bad idea to bring back. I'm on the fence. My motivation would be strictly vindictiveness, not ideology.

 

[Endless_Night]

Sorry to hear about your situation, DVS.


I find it disturbing that even an accusation of discrimination can sometimes be a sentence of guilt, no proof required. Its even more troubling when people want to downplay or dismiss the issue, as though discrimination is not a problem as long as its applied to the “right” group.

For me, it recalls images of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism. A slippery slope, to say the least.

******

The union talk is interesting. My only experience with such was a two year stint in Chicago, an utterly different environment from my right-to-work state. I never could get a grasp on local opinion. It almost seemed a love hate relationship. The people - at least where I was - were very pro-union, but they also complained about corruption in the infrastructure constantly.

And they had the most unnerving habit of talking about the union bosses as though they were mob bosses. It was a little…off putting.

 

[DVS]

Sorry to hear about your situation, DVS.


I find it disturbing that even an accusation of discrimination can sometimes be a sentence of guilt, no proof required. Its even more troubling when people want to downplay or dismiss the issue, as though discrimination is not a problem as long as its applied to the “right” group.

For me, it recalls images of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism. A slippery slope, to say the least.

******

The union talk is interesting. My only experience with such was a two year stint in Chicago, an utterly different environment from my right-to-work state. I never could get a grasp on local opinion. It almost seemed a love hate relationship. The people - at least where I was - were very pro-union, but they also complained about corruption in the infrastructure constantly.

And they had the most unnerving habit of talking about the union bosses as though they were mob bosses. It was a little…off putting.

Teamsters really was controlled by the mob at a point in time. Don't forget Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[Netzach]

Puhleeze. Because headline news cases are the only representation of the workplace that count? Misuse of discrimination laws - even on an individual level - is just as reprehensible as discrimination itself, though no doubt less newsworthy.

And my “about a guy” example was merely one where I had personal knowledge.



This makes it sound as though class action suits are the only defense against discrimination. Hardly the case when most large companies are scrambling, and enforcing, politically correct environments - sometimes to a silly degree.

So basically over 2000 women can be bitten by the rabid pitbull of this reversal of employment law, and MAN BITES DOG OH NO.

Your "silly" environment might be one where someone else can finally work in peace, troubling as it may be.

Shit does happen. Shit has a tendendcy to be unfair. For the first time ever some of that unfairness is being spread around with a bit of callous randomness rather than always rolling down the social hill in a predictable fashion.

 

[Netzach]

I'm not saying unions aren't necessary or valid in some cases. In my case, I was a member of Teamsters. I had previously worked in a union shop and when I quite, I got a withdrawal card. For those of you who don't know, a withdrawal card allows you to join the union again, if you ever find a Teamsters job. Those new to the union pay an initiation fee and it can be quite large, depending on the union. Back when I joined, long ago, the fee was $200. The withdrawal card is very important to get, when you quit a union job. If you don't have one, you have to pay the current initiation fee to rejoin the union.

Anyway, when I got this job, the company had just recently moved from a non-right to work state to a right to work state. They did this just to bust the union. When I got hired, the union steward asked for my withdrawal card, which I gave him. Somehow, it vanished and I was told I would have to pay the initiation fee to join the union or I could just not join the union and still benefit from the union wages.

I wanted my withdrawal card back, but nobody knew where it was or nobody was talking. Eventually, the union dropped out and the employer had accomplished what he had tried to do. But, because the union was pissed, they didn't give any of us a withdrawal card. The employer won, but everybody else really lost. I think the employer took my card.

Teamsters is kind of...special.

 

[Endless_Night]

So basically over 2000 women can be bitten by the rabid pitbull of this reversal of employment law, and MAN BITES DOG OH NO.

Your "silly" environment might be one where someone else can finally work in peace, troubling as it may be.

Shit does happen. Shit has a tendendcy to be unfair. For the first time ever some of that unfairness is being spread around with a bit of callous randomness rather than always rolling down the social hill in a predictable fashion.

You seem very determined to misrepresent my posts. I’ve never said women aren’t discriminated against in the workplace. Nor that employment laws aren’t in need of reform.

Rather that creating an environment where the mere accusation of discrimination is enough to lose and secure jobs is hardly a space where people can “work in peace”. And certainly not conducive to a gender/racial/ethnic/etc. blind workplace.

And, that discrimination is reprehensible whether it’s targeting one individual or a group or a demographic other than my own.

 

[IrisAlthea]

This is more "english speaking" than just US really.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/25/mockingbird-mice-and-men-axed-michael-gove-gcse

I read this article and having read The Canterville Ghost" to the kids just a week or so ago and chuckled at "We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language", it got me thinking.

How much does a common language really unite?
Do you think there is a need to seperate and protect when it comes to literary canon and other language issues?

 

[Cumference]

.....

How much does a common language really unite?
Do you think there is a need to seperate and protect when it comes to literary canon and other language issues?

Not much.

A common language can be an important element in an ethnic identity (if a group/nation/ any other separatist horde) wants to build up their common identity, they quite often use language for that.

Once a language has become a lingua franca, I do not think there is any uniting effect to it.
It is just a tool for communicating.

(And sometimes I feel a little sorry for the native English speakers, who must endure having their language butchered by the rest of the world)

 

[LWulf]

...How much does a common language really unite?
Do you think there is a need to seperate and protect when it comes to literary canon and other language issues?

Sometimes, yes.
Specifically, I recall back around 1994, the French government was up in arms about how their core language was being "invaded" by English. Specifically, "internet English."
Lacking modern terms to describe internet terminology, their people were falling back on using English. Speaking in French up to the point of mentioning anything PC related then start interjecting English terms. This greatly upset them, so they tried to institute the development of French technobabble.

I never followed up with this to see if they were successful or not...

I think everybody wants to hold onto their identity or individuality. This is nothing to be ashamed of and to a degree, I feel we should embrace our differences instead of trying to do away with them.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Sometimes, yes.
Specifically, I recall back around 1994, the French government was up in arms about how their core language was being "invaded" by English. Specifically, "internet English."
Lacking modern terms to describe internet terminology, their people were falling back on using English. Speaking in French up to the point of mentioning anything PC related then start interjecting English terms. This greatly upset them, so they tried to institute the development of French technobabble.

I never followed up with this to see if they were successful or not...

I think everybody wants to hold onto their identity or individuality. This is nothing to be ashamed of and to a degree, I feel we should embrace our differences instead of trying to do away with them.

Yes, it's easy to import a word together with a new phenomenon.
Iceland is very strict with it's language policy and they make up their own words for new things, like computer or web related stuff.
I guess I just never thought about that kind of purism when it comes to other languages that are spoken by so many people.

 

[seela]

Yes, it's easy to import a word together with a new phenomenon.
Iceland is very strict with it's language policy and they make up their own words for new things, like computer or web related stuff.
I guess I just never thought about that kind of purism when it comes to other languages that are spoken by so many people.

We have the same approach as Iceland; we make up words of our own for most everything. It's not as strict as with Icelandic though, and some of the words just don't stick.

Regarding varieties of English. I've seen an American book translated to French. Nothing strange about that, except that the small print said that the book was "traduit de l'american" (or something, I don't speak/write French). I was baffled.

 

[IrisAlthea]

We have the same approach as Iceland; we make up words of our own for most everything. It's not as strict as with Icelandic though, and some of the words just don't stick.

Regarding varieties of English. I've seen an American book translated to French. Nothing strange about that, except that the small print said that the book was "traduit de l'american" (or something, I don't speak/write French). I was baffled.

I didn't know that this was a thing in Finland too.
Here we are at the other end of the spectrum and think language should just evolve and come to include stupid grammatical errors as correct alternative forms.
We did have a movement to keep the language clean in the 19th century linked to a wave of romantic nationalism and scandinavism with expressions like "the language of honour and heroes" with historians and poets trying to . It was countred by people pointing out that our words for honour and heroes are loans from Low German.
The greyscale is difficult as usual.

 

[Vixandra]

(And sometimes I feel a little sorry for the native English speakers, who must endure having their language butchered by the rest of the world)

I've often felt the reverse- bad for other language speakers who hear Americans butchering their language.

I spent my teenage years in California, where multiple languages in the same public school classroom is almost the norm. I was used to being around people and sometimes places where English wasn't the dominant language (went to China/Japan towns a lot in LA and San Francisco.) I think that kind of exposure is good for kids, helps them be adaptable so my kids will get it too. Came in handy when I was stationed in Japan at 19.

 

[seela]

I didn't know that this was a thing in Finland too.
Here we are at the other end of the spectrum and think language should just evolve and come to include stupid grammatical errors as correct alternative forms.
We did have a movement to keep the language clean in the 19th century linked to a wave of romantic nationalism and scandinavism with expressions like "the language of honour and heroes" with historians and poets trying to . It was countred by people pointing out that our words for honour and heroes are loans from Low German.
The greyscale is difficult as usual.

Yeah, grammar's definitely become more..lenient here too. In some ways it's good, because many of the grammar rules were originally completely arbitrary. We have a general divide between east and west when it comes to dialects and the "official, correct" Finnish grammar has some traits from eastern variants and some from western. Now they're loosening it up so that in some cases both variants are equal. Not all people like this, though.

The Institute for the Languages of Finland that gives official suggestions for local versions of foreign words. But they're just that, suggestions. Some stick, some don't, eventually the most common one usually becomes the official suggestion too. The same institute also likes to meddle with words that are already established but for some reason deemed wrong and those attempts usually fail miserably.

But I think it's somehow easier, or more natural, for us to come up with original words or at least "localized" variants, because we have a completely different grammar system and thus need to make certain modifications to words anyway. We have a pretty sturdy background in making up Finnish words, because until the second half of the 19th century Finnish was mostly a peasant language, so there was a need to come up with new words if one wanted to use it for academic purposes. Finnish also has quite an elegant system of built-in modifiers that work really well for coming up with new words.

 

[LWulf]

I'm harsher on Americans who speak English poorly than a foreigner who doesn't speak English well enough.

Someone tries to speak English when it's not their native language? It'd be rude to start busting on them for not getting it 'perfect.'

Knowing when someone is a foreigner, especially on the internet? Harder to discern, mistakes happen. *shrug*

 

[tiny_tits]

I'm harsher on Americans who speak English poorly than a foreigner who doesn't speak English well enough.

Someone tries to speak English when it's not their native language? It'd be rude to start busting on them for not getting it 'perfect.'

Knowing when someone is a foreigner, especially on the internet? Harder to discern, mistakes happen. *shrug*

I've traveled to other countries and witnessed other Americans who would get upset if they encountered 'help' that didn't speak English.

Embarrassing. Did I say anything? No. Shame on me.

 

[LWulf]

I've traveled to other countries and witnessed other Americans who would get upset if they encountered 'help' that didn't speak English.

Embarrassing. Did I say anything? No. Shame on me.

Well, when you are in another country, it's a horse of a different feather.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans."

When my family traveled to other countries, someone in the family always spoke the native language. It might not have been perfect and we might have had a horrible Brooklyn accent, but we got by.

Hey, I know how to speak the southern version of any country's language.
"Was ist los, y'all?"
"¿Qué está pasando, y'all?"
"Qu'est-ce qui se passe, y'all?"
"Τι που συμβαίνουν, y'all?"
"Ce se întâmplă, y'all?"

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

This is more "english speaking" than just US really.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/25/mockingbird-mice-and-men-axed-michael-gove-gcse

I read this article and having read The Canterville Ghost" to the kids just a week or so ago and chuckled at "We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language", it got me thinking.

How much does a common language really unite?
Do you think there is a need to seperate and protect when it comes to literary canon and other language issues?

I believe that a common language does truly unite. There are certain cadences to language, colloquialisms, etc that can unite a people. Speech patterns affect thought patterns, affect attitude and ultimately actions, so yes.
It does get tricky, though. When does protecting a language come across as separatism, or downright snobbery? If you raise a nation to believe that their language is superior to others, you will end up with a different national identity than if you raise a nation to love, cherish and protect their language.

 

[DVS]

I've traveled to other countries and witnessed other Americans who would get upset if they encountered 'help' that didn't speak English.

Embarrassing. Did I say anything? No. Shame on me.

I know that Americans don't like people who move into our country and don't learn to speak the language, but to have Americans assume English is going to be spoken in a foreign country, just for their benefit? That's just rude. Someone should point out to them that it goes along with being in a foreign country. I'd guess those native to those countries don't care to learn English, either. Why should they? To make the tourists happy? I think that would be part of the attraction of a foreign land. You don't like it? Don't travel.

 

[StrayKat]

I know that Americans don't like people who move into our country and don't learn to speak the language, but to have Americans assume English is going to be spoken in a foreign country, just for their benefit? That's just rude. Someone should point out to them that it goes along with being in a foreign country. I'd guess those native to those countries don't care to learn English, either. Why should they? To make the tourists happy? I think that would be part of the attraction of a foreign land. You don't like it? Don't travel.

We have foreign languages as obligatory from 4th grade of primary school in Croatia. That is 8 years of learning English, German or French (you can pick but most people take English) by the time kids finish high school. There is hardly anyone I know who doesnt speak English, German or Italian (which was an official language in Dalmatia before the WWII and most older families in cities still speak it fluently).
My father learned Russian in school but went to several courses in Oxford/Cambridge to learn English enough to communicate and read a professional literature he needed for M.D. My mother is a retired college professor of French language.
Due to tourism, most people on the coast speak German, you can hardly find a private accommodation in a summer without owners speaking German at least.

We find it normal be familiar with at least one foreign language, it is almost equal to being literate enough to read and write.

 

[BiBunny]

Well, when you are in another country, it's a horse of a different feather.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans."

When my family traveled to other countries, someone in the family always spoke the native language. It might not have been perfect and we might have had a horrible Brooklyn accent, but we got by.

Hey, I know how to speak the southern version of any country's language.
"Was ist los, y'all?"
"¿Qué está pasando, y'all?"
"Qu'est-ce qui se passe, y'all?"
"Τι που συμβαίνουν, y'all?"
"Ce se întâmplă, y'all?"

Your vernacular is acceptable only so long as you never use "y'all" to address a singular person. It's a plural (or collective) pronoun, and addressing a single person with "y'all" is a hanging offense.

 

[DVS]

I believe that a common language does truly unite. There are certain cadences to language, colloquialisms, etc that can unite a people. Speech patterns affect thought patterns, affect attitude and ultimately actions, so yes.
It does get tricky, though. When does protecting a language come across as separatism, or downright snobbery? If you raise a nation to believe that their language is superior to others, you will end up with a different national identity than if you raise a nation to love, cherish and protect their language.

A common language does tend to unite people. In a country as large as the U.S. it's often considered bothersome to see people who don't speak English. Sure, we know it's not an easy language to learn, but if you want to live here, we also would prefer you try to blend in.

That doesn't mean you have to forget your native tongue, because there are parts of most any large city where you can go and seem like you've gone to another country. In my city, we have a large Asian population, Latino, Russian and German. And these are just the ones I know of.

But, if you want to communicate with merchants, or the government or read some street signs, it helps to know at least enough English to get by. You don't have to be fluent in it, if you can at least be understood. And I think it's cool to talk to someone who only knows broken English and they intermix their native tongue with it. Not only does it show me they are trying, I think it's interesting talking to them. I find it fascinating to meet people who have left their homeland for whatever reason.

I took Spanish for two years in high school, but it really didn't stick. But, in my job, I've had to communicate with people straight from Mexico and Honduras, and they knew very little English. They weren't planning on becoming citizens. They were here just to make some money and send it back to their homeland. With the small Spanish I knew, I could help them with a few words to allow them to communicate with their fellow employees. I wasn't a fantastic speech coach, but I did make it possible for some of them to understand key words and allow them to do their job more efficiently. And they helped me upgrade my high school Spanish.

I've also worked with deaf people. That's another way to communicate. When I was in high school, we had a neighbor who was deaf. So, I was able to learn sign language. Later in life, I worked in one industry where there were strange terms used in the process and they could be confusing, because they had common words, but in an uncommon context.

There was a deaf guy working there and he was really confused at some of the phrases and terms. We ended up creating our own hand signs for some of those terms, to get past the barrier of the English language.

The benefit of that for me is he taught me pretty much every dirty word in sign language. Now I can cuss someone out and they don't even know it.

 

[DVS]

We have foreign languages as obligatory from 4th grade of primary school in Croatia. That is 8 years of learning English, German or French (you can pick but most people take English) by the time kids finish high school. There is hardly anyone I know who doesnt speak English, German or Italian (which was an official language in Dalmatia before the WWII and most older families in cities still speak it fluently).
My father learned Russian in school but went to several courses in Oxford/Cambridge to learn English enough to communicate and read a professional literature he needed for M.D. My mother is a retired college professor of French language.
Due to tourism, most people on the coast speak German, you can hardly find a private accommodation in a summer without owners speaking German at least.

We find it normal be familiar with at least one foreign language, it is almost equal to being literate enough to read and write.

In America, at least when I was in school, foreign languages were electives. I think we were actually required to take a foreign language in high school in order to give us a taste of the world, but I didn't learn that much Spanish, even though I took two years of it.

Many Americans never leave the states for their whole lives and rarely experience someone speaking a foreign language. We can travel hundreds of miles in our own country and still be able to communicate. But, in Europe, someone can travel a few miles and be in a totally different country, so I can see how learning another language can be quite helpful.

In your father's case, weren't there any medical books in other languages he could read? Medicine isn't only taught in English speaking lands. Were they just the books he had access to?

 

[StrayKat]

Many Americans never leave the states for their whole lives and rarely experience someone speaking a foreign language. We can travel hundreds of miles in our own country and still be able to communicate. But, in Europe, someone can travel a few miles and be in a totally different country, so I can see how learning another language can be quite helpful.

Oh yes, that is a huge difference. I sometimes wonder what would it be like to move really far from home and still be able to talk to people in the same language.
When we drive home and come to Slovenia my husband usually says "Ah finally, now we can piss it over til home", and that is far from the smallest country in EU.

In your father's case, weren't there any medical books in other languages he could read? Medicine isn't only taught in English speaking lands. Were they just the books he had access to?

Yes, I am sure there were, but I believe that most of what he wanted/needed to read was either written in or translated to English.