If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   U.S. Airways asks non-union employees to work for free over the holidays   (money.cnn.com) divider line 343
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

15319 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2004 at 4:41 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



343 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-29 07:51:47 PM
2004-12-29 07:37:48 PM shipud

No they don't, they are giving the individual more negotiating power, by making her part of a group.

Did you actually type that with a straight face?
 
2004-12-29 07:52:25 PM
shipud:

No they don't, they are giving the individual more negotiating power, by making her part of a group. After all that individual is facing a group by herself: a group of highly traned HR personnel and managers, whose objective is to maximize productivity and minimize compensation. The "meeting of wills" between the individual and the corporation is on the employment moiety only. Jane wants to work, the corp is supplying her with employment. But Jane has to negotiate her terms of employment. The union is helping in its professional capacity as a labor negotiator. If the corp can have a trained group looking after its interests ("it" itself being a group), then why can't Jane?

Absolutely. It's also more efficient for Jane to negotiate as a group than have each person negotiate separately. Just as long as the government doesn't favor EITHER ONE. That's the real problem. If people want to be in a union great. Three unions? Awesome. No unions? Fantastic. But just don't make laws about how unions and corps. should interact.
 
2004-12-29 07:53:13 PM
Maybe if airline pilots weren't getting 6-figure salaries...

/begins thread's tertiary flame-war
 
2004-12-29 07:54:51 PM
"Labor unions abolish the idea of the individual. Capitalism dictates that each person individually negotiates his or her fair value with the corporation."

So administrators can group together as a corporation, but workers can't group together as an union?

Isn't that a contradiction?
 
2004-12-29 07:55:40 PM
One more thing forditude,

Socialism is not liberalism.
Socialism is not Marxism.
Marxism is not liberalism.
Conservatism is not capitalism.
Socialism is not anti-capitalism.
Marxism is not anti-capitalism.
Liberalism is not anti-capitalism.
 
2004-12-29 07:56:54 PM
2004-12-29 07:51:11 PM BillCosby

No such thing as collusion or monopolies to limit an employee's power to choose.

Please remind me again what monopolies exist in America, and what companies are colluding to subvert the labor market.
 
2004-12-29 07:57:59 PM
Dano33:

Do some of you people actually believe that the benefits you receive today are given to you out of the goodness of the companies heart?

No, I believe the company believes that by providing good benefits I will stay and work for them instead of going somewhere else. The company believes that if I am happy and healthy I will do better work with less absenteeism. The company believes that I will stay at the company longer, reducing cost due to turnovers.

And hey, I believe that too.

I certainly hope the company isn't doing anything out of the goodness of it's heart. Or at least not too much. I like my job!
 
2004-12-29 07:58:03 PM
forditude

you seem to believe that economic theory constitutes a set of binding rules on actual human behavior.

the individual isn't bound to negotiate in any pre-set way. they can choose to negotiate collectively or not to participate where there is collective negotiation. all this crap about what the individual *must* do is a joke.

MBAs & economic determinists will kill America yet.
 
2004-12-29 08:00:23 PM
Methinks forditude went to fetch a labor representative to help him/her against the evil FARK inc.
 
2004-12-29 08:01:54 PM
2004-12-29 07:58:03 PM rudaydong

you seem to believe that economic theory constitutes a set of binding rules on actual human behavior.

the individual isn't bound to negotiate in any pre-set way. they can choose to negotiate collectively or not to participate where there is collective negotiation. all this crap about what the individual *must* do is a joke.


Individuals are free to negotiate how and wherever they like, even if it subverts the free markets. However, corporations are free to ship jobs to China and India to avoid bankruptcy when the union says that a person can't be fired or refuses pay cuts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
2004-12-29 08:06:48 PM
"However, corporations are free to ship jobs to China and India to avoid bankruptcy when the union says that a person can't be fired or refuses pay cuts."

Right, and we're free to fully de-incentivize those corporations in terms of taxation if they choose to remain in the US while exporting shiatloads of jobs.

So, apparently, they can't have their cake and eat it either. Everyone has to get a piece.
 
2004-12-29 08:09:07 PM
wow, look at all the assholes blather. I hope civilization goes down in flames. I hope that all of you right wing nuts, keep history in mind. "just get a better job" hmm, sounds like "let them eat cake" to me. There are a helluva lot more poor people than rich. Revolution can happen in any country, yes even here. Not all lefties are anti-gun. Some of us even know how to play with the big toys. I hope everything keeps going the way it has. This might be fun.
 
2004-12-29 08:12:06 PM
forditude:

2004-12-29 08:01:54 PM forditude

Individuals are free to negotiate how and wherever they like, even if it subverts the free markets. However, corporations are free to ship jobs to China and India to avoid bankruptcy when the union says that a person can't be fired or refuses pay cuts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


OK, so you're saying unions and collective action through government regulation is fair game. Also corporations can do whatever they want whether moving jobs or paying thugs to beat up unioners. So everything is fair game. Great.

What's left then? People acting in their own interest maybe?
 
2004-12-29 08:12:28 PM
2004-12-29 08:06:48 PM MrGumboPants

Right, and we're free to fully de-incentivize those corporations in terms of taxation if they choose to remain in the US while exporting shiatloads of jobs.

First, the government has no right to tax a company for moving jobs overseas. However, when the corporation finally decides to move their entire farking headquarters to Vanuatu to avoid oppressive taxation, then you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you and the rest of the liberals helped to cause it.
 
2004-12-29 08:17:13 PM
first I should admit I haven't read your comments, there are too many. But here are my thoughts as a (low level)manager: Sometimes you gotta take one for the team. If that is what it takes to get the job done... do it. However, leadership needs to be in the trenches with them every step also working for free.

otherwise, it's just lip service and BS.
 
2004-12-29 08:17:57 PM
2004-12-29 08:12:06 PM BillCosby

OK, so you're saying unions and collective action through government regulation is fair game.

I am against unions, but haven't said anything contrary to people's right to form a union, and a corporation to be stupid enough to negotiate with them. Being opposed to unions and being opposed to the right to form a union is quite different.

Also corporations can do whatever they want whether moving jobs or paying thugs to beat up unioners. So everything is fair game. Great.

Because companies all the time pay people to beat up unioners. Do you and Mr. Capone know that Prohibition has ended?
 
2004-12-29 08:18:04 PM
forditude:

2004-12-29 08:12:28 PM forditude

First, the government has no right to tax a company for moving jobs overseas.


Why don't you read your own post:

Individuals are free to negotiate how and wherever they like, even if it subverts the free markets. However, corporations are free to ship jobs to China and India to avoid bankruptcy when the union says that a person can't be fired or refuses pay cuts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
2004-12-29 08:20:44 PM
The Baron

otherwise, it's just lip service and BS.

Hey, in all to many cases, that's the order of the day.

(I wonder if they have required classes on that in order to get their MBA?)
 
2004-12-29 08:22:31 PM
forditude:

2004-12-29 08:17:57 PM forditude

Because companies all the time pay people to beat up unioners. Do you and Mr. Capone know that Prohibition has ended?


You're not aware of Bush bringing in the national guard at the behest of the Ports threatening to jail the West Coast dockworkers' union a couple of years ago? Are you dense?
 
2004-12-29 08:22:35 PM
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !
 
2004-12-29 08:25:53 PM
forditude:

2004-12-29 08:17:57 PM forditude

I am against unions, but haven't said anything contrary to people's right to form a union.


My puny brain hurts. Please explain. Personally, I'm against flowers but I'm not against people's right to plant flowers.
 
2004-12-29 08:28:54 PM
The problem I have with unions is the price-fixing that I see as an individual who is NOT in a union.

2 people walk in the door to the average large industrial corporation. Both looking for the same "blue collar" but relatively good job packaging widgets. Because person "A" is in the union, I must hire her at $22.50/hr. due to a collective bargaining agreement. Person "A" was not even of working age when the agreement was made (not part of the "collective," shall we say), yet she is getting the benefits of the collective bargaining. Person "B" who has the same qualifications, could get paid less because instead of basing the hiring of person "A" solely on her personal qualifications, etc., it is based on her status as a union member. And if one wants to justify in saying that A is paying union dues and B is not, then we still have the corporation subsidizing A's status as a union member (with the associated benefits) while B has no such status.

Later, if I want to fire person "A," I may have to effectively get permission from the union to do so. The union's contract effectivly sets hiring procedures (how many non-union folks I can have on the job), firing, raises, salaries, all kinds of stuff. I want to run my own business. If A wants to be in the union, fine. But I'm not one to bargain with a union. I pay fair wages to all employees, but I'm not favoring one over the other because of some status in what I consider an "extra-curricular" professional organization.

It is when the unions block hirings of non-union employees or treat strike-breakers poorly that I get really steamed. You want a union on site? Fine! Really, that's totally ok. But it doesn't mean squat to me. You work hard, you get rewarded. Being in the local 242 doesn't entitle you to more money from ME. Go ask the union to give you a raise. You don't come to work because you want more money? I'm disappointed, but that is your decision, as is mine to replace you with someone who will work for your salary. You want to complain, ok... just do it on what is now your own time.

Perfect example? The recent CA supermarket employee strike. Those folks were getting (some of them) over 25.00/hr with a GED and time on the job as their sole qualifications. Plus the employers were willing to contribute to their health plans. That's $50K a year, folks... not bad for what amounts to no formal higher education. And then they went on strike for f.o.r.e.v.e.r. And what happened at the end? All those people who were willing and eager to work for what the grocery chains were willing to pay were summarily fired to make way for the conquering heros, the union workers. After months of working in crappy condiditons due to jerk union members just outside the doors (a minority to be sure, but a vocal minority) they're just let go. F*** that. You came on board when I needed help? You are gonna keep your job.

I'm happy to hire anyone who will do the job well, and I'll pay a wage commiserate with the work you do for me. But again, I refuse to subsidize what nowadays amounts (in my mind) to a monopoly in the labor market.
 
2004-12-29 08:29:00 PM
2004-12-29 08:22:31 PM BillCosby

You're not aware of Bush bringing in the national guard at the behest of the Ports threatening to jail the West Coast dockworkers' union a couple of years ago? Are you dense?

Jailing is a wee bit different than random beatings of union workers, don't you think?
 
2004-12-29 08:30:08 PM
forditude:
I'd rather take a beating.
 
2004-12-29 08:39:32 PM
Money sucks.
 
2004-12-29 08:42:20 PM
Nice to see all you Farkers on here wishing for me to lose my job, when I did nothing to deserve this at all. I have worked hard at this job for the last 6 years, only to have a bunch of unionistas in Philadelphia ruin it for me. You think it is funny to wish unemployment on another person? I hope you get cancer and suffer a long, painful, chemo ridden slide to death if that is the way you think. Brazil, you are one of them.

P.S. I AM one of the people who will be working for free this weekend, and proud of it. I have a personal interest in saving what I have, and your laughter aside, it is the right thing to do. I bet if most of you here were in the same situation, you would probably refuse to do so, exposing yourselves for the disloyal, lazy, and shiftless people that you can be. America has a real interesting future ahead if you types are running the show.
 
2004-12-29 08:44:08 PM
So I'm one of the thousands who took it from US Airways this week. Currently, I'm in a town in the Adirondacks with a population of about 600. I'm on day 6 of wearing the same jeans and t-shirt; I was able to get underwear, a toothbrush, and a razor in town, otherwise I got what I had on my carry-on (basically this computer). US Airways hasn't answered a phonecall to its baggage handling department since December 23 (though you can still talk to a live person by calling the reservations line -- apparently, they are still able to staff those phones where money is coming in...)

As best as I can get the info from the reservations people, my bag can't be officially considered lost for 3 months. Until then, I can't receive more than the $150 reimbursement that they MIGHT repay if I send my receipts and a letter to some bizarre address in Pittsburgh. Even this information took me about 3 days to pry from them. Though even I were to drive over an hour to get to the nearest store (Wal-mart) and buy $150 of stuff inferior to what I lost, I somehow doubt they will rush to make good on that debt prior to raping their own coffers before the bankrupty lawyers land.

Let's say I do get my stuff back in, say, 30 days. Clearly I will have to replace my winter jacket, gloves, hat, shoes, some clothes before then. So basically I figure I'm out $500 for starters (could get by with less, I guess, but some degree of professionalism is expected at work).

Needless to say: Christmas/vacation ruined, embarassment of no presents for gathered family, etc. -- "Priceless"

My point? I guess, fark both the unions and the CEOs. They certainly farked me.

/granted, the whole tidal wave thing kind takes them steam out of the "Worst Christmas Ever" rant I had been working on
//wish me luck: I'm flying home on US airways tomorrow (I think)
 
2004-12-29 08:44:40 PM
"forditude: subverts the free markets"

organized labor IS the free market. it is human beings selling their product on the best terms they can get. if the terms they can get at one time spoils the market for them later, they need to re-negotiate or try something else.

If the wage they can get provides them with decades of windfall profits in the form of wages and benefits at the expense of shareholders and management, awesome. I like them for this, you hate them for it, yet you claim to be a lover of the free market.

Why shouldn't labor be allowed to use group buying and selling to their advantage in the marketplace for labor? When management does the same thing, do you say the free market has been subverted?

And no, it isn't cheating for those same workers to vote people in who will create a favorable regulatory environment for them. At least not one iota more than when business does it.

There is not a pure free market out there waiting for MBAs to pop from its holding tank so it can spread its wings and soar with eagles. It is a description of an idea; an idea we are not bound to in whole or part.
 
2004-12-29 08:51:26 PM
hey atomiccat

I'd like to amend my comments to: fark those who are letting me swing, but thanks to those who are making it better. I will try to keep this in mind tomorrow when dealing with your co-workers.

/hey, any chance you seen my bag. It's black and has these rollers...
 
2004-12-29 09:10:40 PM
Unions had their place, they did lots of good. But now they don't fight for fairness, they fight for advantage and to milk the system just as much as any corporate CEO does. They got intertwined with organized crime and they have a knee-jerk reaction to back a worker whether he/she is in the wrong or the right. They used to be entities of conscience, now they are just another gimmegimmegimmee organization. They have essentially extorted themselves out of work. And when the heat gets too much they......as Billy Joel pointed out....crawl away.



Union folks blame all of their troubles on union breakers, Republicans, and management. But the bad rep they have has been self-earned over many years.



The world changed, Unions did not.
 
2004-12-29 09:14:50 PM
Brazil, you and your objectivism makes me laugh everytime I read it. Ayn Rand was a crack pot and her theories and ideas were lunacy. The weakness in her ideologies was and is found in your many many posts. Keep posting though it makes me laugh everytime you try to defend your thoughts.
 
2004-12-29 09:23:58 PM
archdeacon, I can only say that what happened over the last few days was not a systemwide problem. PIT, CLT, LGA, EWR, BWI, DCA, BOS experienced NONE of the problems that PHL did. In fact, I non-rev'd myself with checked bags from BDL to DCA to PIT on Christmas day, and nothing went wrong. This was a PHL deal, pure and simple. The rampers called in sick, walked off the job, and the flight attendants called in sick as well - believe me, I was in the thick of it with crew scheduling, and it was not a pretty sight.

Essentially, only those passenger who had the misfortune to transfer flights or originate or arrive at PHL were affected. Unfortunately, PHL is the biggest hub in the US Airways system, so huge numbers of people got screwed.

I am truly sorry for what happened to you, just as with everyone else. I can tell you that they are trying to get things cleaned up there and get everyone's bags to them, but it's going to be a few more days. I know that I am heading over to there from PIT tomorrow morning to help them out, and hopefuly can find your bag and get it to you. I wish none of this had happened, but over here we were helpless to just watch PHL tear itself apart.

Arkansas, YOU should be working as a CEO somewhere. Please don't get the idea that unions need to be eliminated - they do serve a purpose still. But some unions, like IAM are notorious troublemakers in this country, and need to be reined in somehow. Nobody should be asked to work for poverty wages, but nobody working a monkey's job should ever expect a king's ransom either. Anyhow, you hit the nail on the head there...good thinking.
 
2004-12-29 09:31:10 PM
No doubt labor unions have a good bit of negatives. Improper motivation, protection of ineffecient workers, etc. I work for a corporation that spends over $1 billion with lobbyists. Influential firms such as Public Strategies are hired by corporations to constantly benefit corporations but not the employees who work for the corporation.

It is the very nature of the corporation to better itself. Deterioration of benefits, salary, etc. are part of the process. One corporation does it, all other corporations in the same market follow suit to stay competitive.

I'm all for bashing unions and the folks who belong to them like the rest of the fark crew but dang it if I want the employee to have the same ability to influence politicians as the corporations
 
2004-12-29 09:43:29 PM
dsmo: Yes, treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle would be great.

That's why they have labor laws now, you retard.

Unions are DONE in America. They are getting their ass kicked all over the place, teachers, firemen, police, etc. Pay your share of health insurance and retirement benefits, you selfish pieces of shiat.

They drive up costs, protect inferior employees and generally throw a monkey wrench into progress whenever possible.

A 60 year old solution to a modern problem.
 
2004-12-29 09:52:43 PM
hillbillypharmacist:

exactly- teaching and policework are the two most egregious examples of jobs that are absolutely vital to be done correctly, but get paid shiat.

I don't know (or care) where you live, but in RI, the median average income for a teacher is $65,000. I know it's more in MA and CT. That's not exactly shiat... especially when you only have to "work" 180 days a year. I won't even go into the benefits athat they recieve and what that costs taxpayers.

Do yourself a favor if you start to feel bad about how "little" teachers get paid... drive to your local high school tomorrow and look at the cars in the parking lot. See if they are, generally speaking, a lot newer and nicer than yours. You will se a lot of shiny new SUV's, Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, high end domestic and foreign cars.

Oh, wait, you cna't do that tomorrow... they are on vacation again this week, aren't they?
 
2004-12-29 10:00:42 PM
No, DeBeers has a monopoly. They control the world's supply, both directly and indirectly. It is not all in the ground, much is just sitting in storage so they can trickle out the supply.

yep to that. DeBeers has warehouses full of diamonds... anyone who buys a diamond = sucker. anyone who has a diamond should get it appraised... and then try and sell it to the person who appraised it at that price. good luck, sucker!
 
2004-12-29 10:03:00 PM
IamGod2u:

Oh, wait, you cna't do that tomorrow... they are on vacation again this week, aren't they?

nice one!
 
2004-12-29 10:07:07 PM
BigTuna:

Education is the most important tool we have to shape the future, and yet the market has determined that teachers are less valuable than cops. The market once again betrays its bias for the short term over the long.

It's a good thing that the "market" didn't pay teachers based on how well they fulfill their "company's" mission statement. If teachers got paid based on student performance, they would be making less than McDonald's employees.

At least when I go to McDonald's I know I am going to get a hamburger for my money. Most schools are getting $10,000 or more per pupil in tax dollars and producing below average students.

And stop passing the blame to the parents. Schools suck in this country, they are set up to support a manufacturing economy that was destroyed by unions in this country and they don't have a clue how to get better. Public schools educate 30% of the kids if you are lucky.

Keep paying your taxes to the unionized teacher-driven industrial aged education monoply and don't complain. If you do, they may diagnose your kid with some disorder and put him on drugs to "control" it.

And no... I don't have kids in school... I work in them.
 
2004-12-29 10:10:38 PM
IamGod2u:

2004-12-29 09:43:29 PM IamGod2u [TotalFark]

dsmo: Yes, treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle would be great.

That's why they have labor laws now, you retard. Unions are DONE in America.


Exactly why do you think we have those laws? Unions. When you win a battle in a war you don't dismantle the army. Is it is half as many people are in unions as compared to 20 years ago and Bush and Co. have taken advantage and been dismantling those "set in stone" labor laws. asshat (no offense meant).
 
2004-12-29 10:16:50 PM
BillCosby:

dsmo: Yes, treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle would be great.

That's why they have labor laws now, you retard. Unions are DONE in America.

Exactly why do you think we have those laws? Unions.


Therefore, we won't see management "treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle" will we?

/wins argument
 
2004-12-29 10:17:25 PM
When you try to tie me to your alter of self sacrifice in order to pursue your notion of "social justice", you commit evil. You have no claim on my life as I have none on yours. All exchanges that are not voluntary contracts are just plain wrong.

You forget the inherient social contracts of society, that government's obligation to serve the needs of the people. (by living in society you recieve the benefits of society, and the agreement you make is that, you must follow the laws and pay taxes) Granted you have little choice in this contract, are you an anarchist?

First this is not us coming to take your toys this is about requiring large corporations to follow the same laws we must. Also if we can abridge a citizen's right for national security than a corporation's certainly isn't absolute.


And when the structure of society allows special status for corporations, they must have special restrictions too. IF your corporations have the same rights of individuals, they should have the same restrictions.

Where's the corporate death penalty?, where's the forfieture of property used in the comission of a crime?

The purpose of a corporation is to limit the liability of the investors. They have one goal, to make $$$ and by seperating the investors/owners from the actual decision making they create a paradigm where the only valuable thing is to make money, and more importantly to make money NOW... and boost stock prices.


With this reduction of liabilty, (read lack of personal responsibility) comes a cost, that is that there is little to stop unscrupelous people for using positions of power to steal from others, to maximize short term profits (during their employment) and to increase the day to day stock value for investors who have no intention of holding the stock, this is why we are seeing enron's.

Kenny Boy stole all he could, Bush did the same, The corporate culture is "Steal all you can, while you can, and don't get caught."

The real problem comes that the "free market" is supposed to weed this out eventually. However stealing is an effective and time honored way to make money.

and this means that from a capitalist morality it's ok. if they were more able bodied, capable people , worthy of success they wouldn't have let you cheat them.


...And you workerbees should relize there are 20 people knocking on the managers door ever week looking at your job. So GBTW!

That comes to another point, our society trys to maintain the 'optimal level of unemployment' . Look at greenspan talking about unemployment as too low.

What a joke, we establish the rules such that the we promote the interests of special interest groups, and as we have established that $$$= speech those with the most $$ have the most right to speak and be heard.

When we have government agencies working for higher unemployment, the age of the union certainly has not passed.
 
2004-12-29 10:22:10 PM
New hotness: Labor Laws
Old and Busted: Unions

Unions are a leftover from a manufactuting economy that, generally speaking, no longer exists outside of third world countries.

Today's good jobs and tomorrows best jobs will require people to THINK for a living. Specialized knowledge, and it's application to solve problems and create new technologies will be the barometer of how people will be paid.

You don't need a union to "protect" your job when you have a skill that any jerkoff off the street can't do.
 
2004-12-29 10:22:24 PM
IamGod2u:

2004-12-29 10:16:50 PM IamGod2u [TotalFark]

BillCosby:

dsmo: Yes, treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle would be great.

That's why they have labor laws now, you retard. Unions are DONE in America.

Exactly why do you think we have those laws? Unions.

Therefore, we won't see management "treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle" will we?

/wins argument



Um, maybe you didn't see my second sentence:

When you win a battle in a war you don't dismantle the army. Half as many people are in unions now as compared to 20 years ago. Bush and Co. have taken advantage and been dismantling those "set in stone" labor laws.

Most famously, the right to unionize of government workers.

/befuddled
 
2004-12-29 10:22:45 PM
Look at the past four years or so. The economic situation in this country has been declining. We have huge problems with a $500 billion budget deficit, a fudged occupation in Iraq, the average income per capita has been declining, unemployment has risen as the "outsourcing" of jobs continues.

And things don't look like they are going to get any better. The great economic conditions we have had for the past 60 years were driven by a strong middle class. If we continue to cut wages and cut jobs so that investors can take home additional dollars, who the hell is going to be able to afford the products?

Like some have been saying, people right now, especially those at the top of the food chain, are only looking at short term results. If we are going to kill off the middle class right now for the sake of making some extra money in the short run, what the hell are we headed to five or ten years off?
 
2004-12-29 10:31:16 PM
IamGod2u:

2004-12-29 10:22:10 PM IamGod2u [TotalFark]

New hotness: Labor Laws
Old and Busted: Unions


Where do you think labor laws come from? From the kindness of Senators hearts? Try Unions.
 
2004-12-29 10:33:00 PM
IamGod2u

Therefore, we won't see management "treating workers as demonstrated in a book like The Jungle" will we?

Like someone else said, you think corporations are giving away health care and retirement plans out of the goodness of their hearts? In the current day, corporations are trying to cut health care costs and trying to get rid of company-funded retirement plans. The current administration is not going to stop them. We know that by looking at the dockworkers on the West Coast a few years ago. We know this by looking at the changes made to the overtime pay of workers. If we start by getting rid of health insurance and higher overtime pay, what is to stop us from getting rid of unemployment, or weakening labor laws?

Face it, corporations don't care about you, they care about making money. The second they are allowed to cut costs without fear of reprisal, they are going to do it.

That's where the Jungle comes in, and essentially what you get is a race to the bottom among the average person. Yes we have labor laws, but do you really think Bush Inc. is going to demand they are enforced?
 
2004-12-29 10:33:16 PM
U.S. employees asked to work for free until they become competative with slavery.
 
2004-12-29 10:38:54 PM
dsmo

//you're not dimethysulfoxide,(sp?) so i guess you don't mix well with others.... or not as well as a universal solvent... LOL //chem nerd jokes...

anyway... well we'll be farked, look what they're doign to social security.

The egoistic materialistic hedonism that is exemplified Hummers, P-diddy's I-pod, paris hilton, etc. Is just a manifestation of the greed that's destroying our society.


//rich getting richer
 
2004-12-29 10:39:59 PM
I think Unions have gone greedy over the years. One example I can give is that the Union President (title?) at Ford Motor Plant (not saying which one) get a salary of $100,000 as the Union Pres which is voted in. WTF? How can a position pay like that?

But on teh plus side Ford employees are paid good, hell great for what they do, one guy who has been there for years, close to retirement gets paid (i dunno, but you start at 13-15/hr) alot. But what does he do? Well he beeps the horn when the vehicles go by him. Oh I think they also have him check the turn signals this year. Yes jealousy peeked its ugly head in. Wish I worked at Ford. =(
 
2004-12-29 10:56:31 PM
BillCosby:

Where do you think labor laws come from? From the kindness of Senators hearts? Try Unions.

dsmo:

Like someone else said, you think corporations are giving away health care and retirement plans out of the goodness of their hearts?

comslave: U.S. employees asked to work for free until they become competative with slavery.

OK... you are all correct. Unions are very relevant in today's information based ecomomy, right?

A highly educated, skilled problem solver with specific critical thinking skills needed in a particular field needs a UNION to protect his job, or to provide him with competitive wages and benefits? NO. His/her skills will ensure that happens because they have MARKETABLE skills. Supply and demand, remember?

There is a huge supply of dumbasses you can get off the streets who can become excellent baggage handlers, I can assure you.

Why is everyone repeating the same shiat over and over.... yes, labor laws exist because of unions... OK. But they DO exist. Huge numbers of labor JOBS no longer exist in this country because of unions as well.

Unions are an anachronism. Old, busted and out of place in this time.
 
Displayed 50 of 343 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report