Also sounds familiar if we substitute some other words for 'corporations' in the following:

The problem with trying to appease corporations is that it's never enough.

For example the BTF, Sheldon Silver, the SEIU, environmentalists, religious fanatics, etc., .... it's never enough.

Maybe it's human nature that nothing is ever 'enough'. Bottom line is people and companies can and should vote with their feet when feasible. People or companies in Tennessee or N Carolina who want to live or expand a business in a place with policies like NY has would be better off moving here than to think they'll be able to organize big changes in Tenn or NC.

And vice versa - trying to change NY to be more business friendly is probably not a smart use of anyone's time. People should more or less accept NY as it as it is or leave.

Colin, if only it were that simple. The union money that flows into the political process, years of corruption and graft has created an environment in which the things unions advocate for are actually negatively impacting their membership. Union members aren't getting work because the companies that would employ them are leaving the state. Union wages, work rules and the state disability laws are major components of why it is too expensive to do business in NY. Stuay after study demonstrates the fact that the cost of business in NY is amongst the highest in the country.

It reminds me of a book called "What's the matter with Kansas?" In Kansas farmers and the poor continue to vote for Republicans that, time after time, make decisions that negatively effect them. The fact that they continue to vote for politicians that don't look out for their economic best interest is explained by thei Republican's social conservatism. It is basically a herd response driven by some trigger "us against them" mentaility. I think that the same applies with the union membership that, aided by years of union supporting legislation, continue to support leaders that are looking only to feather their own nests while driving the members' employers out of the state.

The strength of the USW in Buffalo is exactly the reason you won't see any large scale investment from any manufacturer into new industry in WNY. They are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

I guess we can't expect him to say "Union power in politics ensures that upstate NY will never be a business-friendly location for any enterprise, large or small"

Texpat, I agree with you though I think the comparison to a place like Kansas is not quite right. If, as the book states, they are choosing some cultural values over money then I respect them for doing that, but with the unions it is the opposite, they are choosing the money rather than cultural values. Our architectural heritage might crumble, the Senecas might buy large chunks of the city, our museums may sell their collections, our sports teams and people may relocate, but they will hold on to those union perks and money for as long as they can. The people in Kansas can probably make their system work, but I think the Unions are taking us down the path to ruin.

Allowing the Unions to gain a foothold in the "Green" industries will guarantee that the larger jobs of this type will be closed to small and independent contractors that do not pay into the union. It will guarantee that companies that approve bids to non-union companies will be picketed and protested. It will guarantee that the expenses associated with installing environmentally friendly technologies will increase substantially.

I believe that neither the corporations nor the unions bargain in good faith. Taking concessions on unrealistic and single-sided demands is not bargaining, it is akin to the auto dealer who jacks up the price $2,000.00 and then gives you a bargain by taking $1,500 off that price. Both sides are equally culpable and both sides are equally greedy. The only difference is that the company is in this to make money for the shareholders and to grow the company, which usually allows for more employees, but the unions are only in it for themselves. The union has no one else's interests in mind.

I am sure that the training mentioned above will require membership in the union and the training structure that guarantees many years of servitude to the union as apprentice to journeyman to craftsman, all to repress the ambition and desire of the younger members in an effort to protect the interests of the older. There is no need for ambition and eagerness in the union, your path is cast and role guaranteed as long as you play by the union's rules. We have seen the unions kill off industries for years, at the sake of preserving their lifestyle, this f*** everyone who isn't us mentality has crippled America and will ensure our continued decline to second world status over the coming years.

Ok if I slip in 2.a after 2. ?

2.a. Or, much easier, to organize your feet in a way that locates yourself and/or your company, or locates your company's job growth, in some other state that already has less business-hostile economic policies than NY.

2. It really is that simple. If you want the government to adopt conservative economic policies, it's your responsibility to organize to that effect.

The problem with trying to appease corporations is that it's never enough. Even if the state cut 1/2 of its regulation, and workers took a 50% pay cut across the board, the climate would still not be suitably "pro-business" enough. The demand for concessions will never end, because in a global market there is always someone hungrier and more desperate than you.

We've seen this process happen with industry, and people have clucked their tongues at unions and "old economy" states like New York. But the process isn't stopping there, and more and more "new economy" jobs are being shipped out, too. What happened to Buffalo and Cleveland will happen to Charlotte and Phoenix.

It's a losing game, and it's hard to see a way out. Participating in the race to the bottom probably isn't it, though.

Atwater I pretty much agree with everything that you said, and think you said it well, except your conclusion. It isn't a waste of time to try and make New York more business friendly. It is pretty much imperative. Even if the efforts aren't successful or just marginally so the time and effort is well spent.

The point I was making is that people will do things that aren't always in their self-interest. Joining a union to get higher wages only to have said union's policies drive your employer out of state or out of business is economic masochism.

All,

1. It's interesting that you would bring up "What's the Matter with Kansas," since its author is an anti-corporate economic populist.

2. It really is that simple. If you want the government to adopt conservative economic policies, it's your responsibility to organize to that effect. If the people that disagree with you do a better job advocating for their position, it's hardly surprising that they would get their way, right?

3. Unions concede ground at the bargaining table all the time. Just read the paper. The American Axle strike was settled with big wage cuts. It's a bloodbath for industrial unions like the Steelworkers and the UAW.

4. Even when they don't make concessions, can you blame them? How often have you turned down a raise, or offered to take a pay cut?

5. If you're upset about public sector union deals, your anger is properly directed at the government. It would seem that the government is a bad negotiator.

The Steelworkers' political influence (which is less than you imagine) was gained through decades of hard work and organizing. You can do the same thing. Or you can complain that those you disagree with have the gall to be better organized than you.

Yes, it's terrible when people join together to advocate for their interests.

(And I realize you made a similar point about the USW. I was adding my agreement with your 1st comment way above, and with what Einstein wrote.)

Or even Ohio or Indiana (Honda and Toyota have located lots of jobs in those).

Texpat - I see what you're saying and I tried to qualify it by saying 'probably' and 'more or less' rather than being too extreme.

trying to change NY to be more business friendly is probably not a smart use of anyone's time. People should more or less accept NY as it as it is or leave

Yes sometimes there can be small temporary victories. I support those. But it's moving so much in the left direction with huge spending hikes in recent budgets, and things like the Wicks Law this year being made even more punishing to non-union businesses for public projects. Hoyt is also trying for more punishing of non-union businesses on IDA-assisted private projects.

It will be interesting to see if Wilmers as ESDC chair can at least slow down any of the worsening, but the idea anyone can pull NY back to the political center seems unrealistic. Pataki first won office supposedly wanting to do that, then he soon realized to keep power he had to move left and obey union lobbyists most of the time.

At some point it becomes clear that Colin's philosophies have strong support in NY, in both parties. Maybe it's time to just consider the anti-business environment like the snowy winters - some people people like them, some don't like but tolerate them, and some don't like them and move away because of them.

This green agenda as discussed in this article sounds in many ways like a trojan horse for other agendas. There's no reason to think it will increase the total number of jobs as USW guy claims is the goal.

What did I mean 'pull NY back to the political center'? Was it ever there? Maybe when Grover Cleveland was governor? Late 1800s? Jim O, true?