Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Toledo Blade)   This is an even-numbered year so Ohio voters are anti-union   (toledoblade.com) divider line 79
    More: Strange, Ohio, Quinnipiac Poll, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Rob Portman, healthcare reform, smoking bans, proposed law, assistant director  
•       •       •

1116 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2012 at 11:24 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-14 09:56:38 AM  
WHAR TOLEDO FARKER WHAR
 
2012-02-14 10:19:53 AM  
didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?
 
2012-02-14 10:46:10 AM  

FlashHarry: didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?


Anti-union = bad

Right-to-work = good

Welcome to Frank Luntz's America.
 
2012-02-14 10:48:29 AM  

FlashHarry: didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?


Yes, which is precisely why national elections keep hinging on Ohio. The whole state is full of people who can't make up their goddamn mind.
 
2012-02-14 11:29:13 AM  
Obviously, people think right-to-work means something completely different.

"Of course I support the right-to-work!" never realizing it means the right to fire without cause.
 
2012-02-14 11:30:16 AM  
Idiots, the lot of them.

If you don't already know, you already have the right to work. You have the right to not join and partake in the union. What you don't have the right to is the benefits the Union secures for you even though you are not a member and thus you must still pay a fee to the union(which is different from Union dues).

Right to work is just like every other piece of legislation in this country. It is a projection of exactly what the bill isn't. It is a right to be fired bill, a right to let employers abuse you through lower salary, benefits, and working conditions.
 
2012-02-14 11:31:25 AM  
I don't see what the problem is. I like being able to quit my job at any time for any reason, and pitting myself up against the vast swathes of unemployed people out there, fighting for what limited jobs are left that haven't been outsourced to a third world nation.

... oh.


/always found it funny how it's considered "untactful" to not give 2 weeks notice when you're quitting,
//but it's basically unheard of for employers to give any notice at all when laying people off.
 
2012-02-14 11:31:27 AM  
Just wait until their boss fires them because he is having a bad day and they can do nothing about it. Most of the time all right-to-work does is allow people who aren't in unions to enjoy the benefits the unions negotiated for without having to pay dues.
 
2012-02-14 11:32:16 AM  

Lsherm: FlashHarry: didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?

Yes, which is precisely why national elections keep hinging on Ohio. The whole state is full of people who can't make up their goddamn mind.


Incorrect. The state is made up of two groups - the city dwellers, who are mostly liberal, pro-union, but only vote en masse in national elections, and the country hicks, who vote in every election from naming the local postmaster to off-year elections that the city folks can't be bothered with. These rural folks are heavily conservative...for no real reason other than their pappy's and grandpappy's were, not realizing the Republicans their forefathers voted for were progressives. Seriously, most folks in rural Ohio have no idea what the Southern Strategy was, and vote based on who their family has always voted for. They buy cars that way, and they go to church that way.

Meanwhile you have Columbus which has one of the largest LGBT communities in the midwest.
 
2012-02-14 11:33:38 AM  
Legislative Democrats oppose it and Republicans, still shell-shocked by the shellacking they took last November over Senate Bill 5, are afraid of it, but 54 percent of voters say they like the idea of making Ohio a "right-to-work" state, the latest Quinnipiac Poll said Tuesday.

You know, it could be that right-to-work (you don't have to join a union), and SB 5 (unions can't collectively bargain) are actually different issues.
 
2012-02-14 11:40:59 AM  

meat0918: Obviously, people think right-to-work means something completely different.

"Of course I support the right-to-work!" never realizing it means the right to fire without cause.


I think you're getting right-to-work confused with employment-at-will. People get those confused quite often.
 
2012-02-14 11:42:39 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: meat0918: Obviously, people think right-to-work means something completely different.

"Of course I support the right-to-work!" never realizing it means the right to fire without cause.

I think you're getting right-to-work confused with employment-at-will. People get those confused quite often.


Err wait, I'm a dumbass, aren't I? Sorry; reading comprehension fail.
 
2012-02-14 11:44:24 AM  
No wait, I had it right the first time, me thinks. I'm gonna go make coffee. Wow.
 
2012-02-14 11:44:48 AM  

meat0918: "Of course I support the right-to-work!" never realizing it means the right to fire without cause.


Apparently you don't know what it is either.
 
2012-02-14 11:47:00 AM  
Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?
 
2012-02-14 11:49:48 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Lsherm: FlashHarry: didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?

Yes, which is precisely why national elections keep hinging on Ohio. The whole state is full of people who can't make up their goddamn mind.

Incorrect. The state is made up of two groups - the city dwellers, who are mostly liberal, pro-union, but only vote en masse in national elections, and the country hicks, who vote in every election from naming the local postmaster to off-year elections that the city folks can't be bothered with. These rural folks are heavily conservative...for no real reason other than their pappy's and grandpappy's were, not realizing the Republicans their forefathers voted for were progressives. Seriously, most folks in rural Ohio have no idea what the Southern Strategy was, and vote based on who their family has always voted for. They buy cars that way, and they go to church that way.

Meanwhile you have Columbus which has one of the largest LGBT communities in the midwest.


I wasn't being literal. Collectively, it's a very "purple" state.
 
2012-02-14 11:53:36 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: meat0918: Obviously, people think right-to-work means something completely different.

"Of course I support the right-to-work!" never realizing it means the right to fire without cause.

I think you're getting right-to-work confused with employment-at-will. People get those confused quite often.


Yes, yes we do.

Coffee sounds good right about now.
 
2012-02-14 12:06:30 PM  

Dr. Whoof: Lsherm: FlashHarry: didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?

Yes, which is precisely why national elections keep hinging on Ohio. The whole state is full of people who can't make up their goddamn mind.

Incorrect. The state is made up of two groups - the city dwellers, who are mostly liberal, pro-union, but only vote en masse in national elections, and the country hicks, who vote in every election from naming the local postmaster to off-year elections that the city folks can't be bothered with. These rural folks are heavily conservative...for no real reason other than their pappy's and grandpappy's were, not realizing the Republicans their forefathers voted for were progressives. Seriously, most folks in rural Ohio have no idea what the Southern Strategy was, and vote based on who their family has always voted for. They buy cars that way, and they go to church that way.

Meanwhile you have Columbus which has one of the largest LGBT communities in the midwest.


Grandpa was a carpenter built houses, stores and banks
Chain smoked Camel cigarettes and hammered nails in planks
He was level on the level and shaved even every door
And voted for Eisenhower 'cause Lincoln won the war
 
2012-02-14 12:18:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?


Do you support the repeal of the Wagner Act?
 
2012-02-14 12:25:36 PM  

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?

Do you support the repeal of the Wagner Act?


Nope. But then again I'm not an anti-regulation Republican.
 
2012-02-14 12:32:40 PM  

MithrandirBooga: I don't see what the problem is. I like being able to quit my job at any time for any reason, and pitting myself up against the vast swathes of unemployed people out there, fighting for what limited jobs are left that haven't been outsourced to a third world nation.

... oh.


/always found it funny how it's considered "untactful" to not give 2 weeks notice when you're quitting,
//but it's basically unheard of for employers to give any notice at all when laying people off.


And employers never just "take people off the schedule" to fire them without firing them.
 
2012-02-14 12:43:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?

Do you support the repeal of the Wagner Act?

Nope. But then again I'm not an anti-regulation Republican.


As long as it exists states will have to formulate patches that return labor relations to as close to free market as possible.
 
2012-02-14 12:45:38 PM  

MithrandirBooga: I don't see what the problem is. I like being able to quit my job at any time for any reason, and pitting myself up against the vast swathes of unemployed people out there, fighting for what limited jobs are left that haven't been outsourced to a third world nation.

... oh.


/always found it funny how it's considered "untactful" to not give 2 weeks notice when you're quitting,
//but it's basically unheard of for employers to give any notice at all when laying people off.


Employers don't usually need a recommendation from their former employees.
 
2012-02-14 12:47:44 PM  

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?

Do you support the repeal of the Wagner Act?

Nope. But then again I'm not an anti-regulation Republican.

As long as it exists states will have to formulate patches that return labor relations to as close to free market as possible.


So the States have to legally prevent companies from voluntarily entering into contracts in the name of the Holy "Free Market".
 
2012-02-14 12:50:12 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: WHAR TOLEDO FARKER WHAR


I think it's just you and me, man.

/not subby though
 
2012-02-14 01:02:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?

Do you support the repeal of the Wagner Act?

Nope. But then again I'm not an anti-regulation Republican.

As long as it exists states will have to formulate patches that return labor relations to as close to free market as possible.

So the States have to legally prevent companies from voluntarily entering into contracts in the name of the Holy "Free Market".



As long as the Wagner Act exists (and the Taft-Hartley Act and others), there is no free market in this area. There is no such thing as "voluntarily enter into contracts" here because there are serious restrictions as to what the contracts can be. The best you can do is attempt some "corrective" legislation at the state level to get it a bit closer. Either that or repeal the federal regulations if you want a free labor market.
 
2012-02-14 01:05:23 PM  

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: Why do the free market, anti-regulation Republicans want to regulate what contract provisions private businesses can agree to?

Do you support the repeal of the Wagner Act?

Nope. But then again I'm not an anti-regulation Republican.

As long as it exists states will have to formulate patches that return labor relations to as close to free market as possible.

So the States have to legally prevent companies from voluntarily entering into contracts in the name of the Holy "Free Market".


As long as the Wagner Act exists (and the Taft-Hartley Act and others), there is no free market in this area. There is no such thing as "voluntarily enter into contracts" here because there are serious restrictions as to what the contracts can be. The best you can do is attempt some "corrective" legislation at the state level to get it a bit closer. Either that or repeal the federal regulations if you want a free labor market.


And by "free labor market" you mean one where workers have absolutely no right to organize for their own benefit, while corporations are free to take any labor action for their benefit.
 
2012-02-14 01:10:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And by "free labor market" you mean one where workers have absolutely no right to organize for their own benefit, while corporations are free to take any labor action for their benefit.


Of course they have the right to organize. No one is stopping them. No one is forced to hire them either.

A corporation can't just do whatever it wants and expect to be profitable. If they want the best workers and the only way to get them is to hire union workers, then they have to work with a union. If they think they can get by with hiring smelly illiterate hobos, then they don't have to deal with any union. If the corporation starts treating the workers like shiat, then they can all walk out on a wildcat strike and there would be no federal law stopping them as there is now.
 
2012-02-14 01:15:43 PM  

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: And by "free labor market" you mean one where workers have absolutely no right to organize for their own benefit, while corporations are free to take any labor action for their benefit.

Of course they have the right to organize. No one is stopping them. No one is forced to hire them either.

A corporation can't just do whatever it wants and expect to be profitable. If they want the best workers and the only way to get them is to hire union workers, then they have to work with a union. If they think they can get by with hiring smelly illiterate hobos, then they don't have to deal with any union. If the corporation starts treating the workers like shiat, then they can all walk out on a wildcat strike and there would be no federal law stopping them as there is now.


And of course the owners of the corporation should be personally liable for the actions and liabilities of the corporation, so that the Free Market can properly punish them for their errors and misdeeds, right? I'm sure you wouldn't want to hobble the majestic workings of the Free Market by shielding the shareholder in any way.
 
2012-02-14 01:20:20 PM  

Dr. Whoof: Lsherm: FlashHarry: didn't they just vote to repeal kasich's anti-union bill?

Yes, which is precisely why national elections keep hinging on Ohio. The whole state is full of people who can't make up their goddamn mind.

Incorrect. The state is made up of two groups - the city dwellers, who are mostly liberal, pro-union, but only vote en masse in national elections, and the country hicks, who vote in every election from naming the local postmaster to off-year elections that the city folks can't be bothered with. These rural folks are heavily conservative...for no real reason other than their pappy's and grandpappy's were, not realizing the Republicans their forefathers voted for were progressives. Seriously, most folks in rural Ohio have no idea what the Southern Strategy was, and vote based on who their family has always voted for. They buy cars that way, and they go to church that way.

Meanwhile you have Columbus which has one of the largest LGBT communities in the midwest.


So true here. Nobody realizes the outside interests pouring into the state. Most Ohioans who sign this shiat most likely don't even know what the hell it means beyond "sticking it to the libs".

And the Ohio Tea Party can suck my cock. They are the biggest tools in the state right now.
 
2012-02-14 01:28:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And of course the owners of the corporation should be personally liable for the actions and liabilities of the corporation, so that the Free Market can properly punish them for their errors and misdeeds, right? I'm sure you wouldn't want to hobble the majestic workings of the Free Market by shielding the shareholder in any way.


If you want to talk about liability that's one thing, but talking about the "misdeeds" of a common shareholder in a public corporation is just stupid. A common shareholder who has no real say in what the corporation does is not party to any corporate misdeeds. I wouldn't be in favor of "shielding" a shareholder that is actually at fault in some way, but applying full liability to some regular jackoff that has a few shares of some company in a mutual fund is simply unjust. Now, large shareholders who do actually have a say in what the corporation does should be held fully liable since it's their decisions that lead to the misdeeds.
 
2012-02-14 01:33:54 PM  

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: And of course the owners of the corporation should be personally liable for the actions and liabilities of the corporation, so that the Free Market can properly punish them for their errors and misdeeds, right? I'm sure you wouldn't want to hobble the majestic workings of the Free Market by shielding the shareholder in any way.

If you want to talk about liability that's one thing, but talking about the "misdeeds" of a common shareholder in a public corporation is just stupid. A common shareholder who has no real say in what the corporation does is not party to any corporate misdeeds. I wouldn't be in favor of "shielding" a shareholder that is actually at fault in some way, but applying full liability to some regular jackoff that has a few shares of some company in a mutual fund is simply unjust. Now, large shareholders who do actually have a say in what the corporation does should be held fully liable since it's their decisions that lead to the misdeeds.


If you really believed in the free market you'd want every share holder out there to have every incentive to ensure that the companies they are the owners of behave in a proper manner. Why should the shareholder receive the benefits of the companies actions while being shielded from the consequences? That is a perversion of the Free Market which you so revere.

I'm amazed that you would want to warp the Free Market in favor of the investor only.
 
2012-02-14 01:38:06 PM  
This is the thing... people hear right-to-work and don't understand what it means. I'm not troubled that 54% say they support Ohio being a right-to-work state. There's nobody out there right now explaining what that actually means. In fact, I find it encouraging that without any major legislation in the news, such a large percentage of Ohioans are against a right-to-work law. Should something come up, I think Ohio's unions will do exactly what they did the last time, and do an excellent job of educating the public about exactly what that phrase means.
 
2012-02-14 01:38:43 PM  

LazarusLong42: thismomentinblackhistory: WHAR TOLEDO FARKER WHAR

I think it's just you and me, man.

/not subby though


More than you'd think, actually! I'm going to be throwing a Toledo Fark party. Talk about lowered expectations...got you farkied and will e-mail you. Turn-out is required.
 
2012-02-14 01:52:22 PM  

Lipo: This is the thing... people hear right-to-work and don't understand what it means. I'm not troubled that 54% say they support Ohio being a right-to-work state. There's nobody out there right now explaining what that actually means. In fact, I find it encouraging that without any major legislation in the news, such a large percentage of Ohioans are against a right-to-work law. Should something come up, I think Ohio's unions will do exactly what they did the last time, and do an excellent job of educating the public about exactly what that phrase means.


There's alot of Anti-Kasich momentum out there yet: his ratings are in the tank and most everybody with a half a brain distrusts the GOP hierarchy right now. Just tie this to SB5, Kasich and the continued plundering of Ohio and the Unions most definitely stand a chance. Shouldn't be too hard to do. Anytime I hear of people praising the scumbag I wonder how stupid or blind they are.
 
2012-02-14 02:13:06 PM  

LazarusLong42: thismomentinblackhistory: WHAR TOLEDO FARKER WHAR

I think it's just you and me, man.

/not subby though


No, Im here too...

srs

/hate you Ohio Republican party.
 
2012-02-14 02:19:13 PM  

meat0918: Obviously, people think right-to-work means something completely different.

"Of course I support the right-to-work!" never realizing it means the right to fire without cause.


Kinda like the 'Patriot-Act'.
 
2012-02-14 02:27:42 PM  
Right-to-work is a union-busting little piece of legislation that is brilliant in it's simplicity. Right now, if there's a union shop, the union negotiates wages and benefits for the employees that work there. These negotiations, and all the other services the union provides, cost time and money to put together. That time and money is paid for with union dues. With me so far?

What right-to-work says is that employees of a business can opt out of paying their dues, and yet still receive the all the benefits the union works hard at getting them. The idea is that, employees will think, "hey, why am I giving up $30 every two weeks, when I can pay nothing and get the same benefit?" And eventually, the union will shrivel up and die because free-riders outnumber the members. And then, the employer has nicely broken the union, without any bad press. And then they can reduce wages and benefits for everyone.

Want data? Compare salaries, benefits, and working conditions between union and non-union shops, and see for yourself the difference it makes.


Oh, and the kicker? Duty of Fair Representation. Which means that legally, as a union officer, I am obligated to represent both union and non-union employees in matters of discipline. And both the union, and I personally, can be sued by a free-rider if I don't fulfill my obligation to take care of someone who has never been a part of, nor supported the union in any way. Notice they aren't talking about rescinding that little requirement...
 
2012-02-14 03:16:48 PM  

jigger: Of course they have the right to organize. No one is stopping them. No one is forced to hire them either.


There is no discernible difference in my between a company that tries to quash its workers from organizing by intimidation and one that simply closes down when its workers organize. However, the former is usually illegal, while the other is never illegal. Both, however, in effect prevent workers from a legal and justifiable recourse should they get out of hand. It's as crude as taking your ball and going home when your weaker opponents bring someone who has as much skill as you do to play.
 
2012-02-14 03:29:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If you really believed in the free market you'd want every share holder out there to have every incentive to ensure that the companies they are the owners of behave in a proper manner. Why should the shareholder receive the benefits of the companies actions while being shielded from the consequences? That is a perversion of the Free Market which you so revere.

I'm amazed that you would want to warp the Free Market in favor of the investor only.


Pretty retarded. And there would be no law shielding anyone, just judges with some common farking sense.

But if you want to go that far, how about applying full liability to every customer of a corporation? You gave them money, you must be party to every transgression ever made by that corporation. Every employee too.
 
2012-02-14 03:30:57 PM  

IlGreven: jigger: Of course they have the right to organize. No one is stopping them. No one is forced to hire them either.

There is no discernible difference in my between a company that tries to quash its workers from organizing by intimidation and one that simply closes down when its workers organize. However, the former is usually illegal, while the other is never illegal. Both, however, in effect prevent workers from a legal and justifiable recourse should they get out of hand. It's as crude as taking your ball and going home when your weaker opponents bring someone who has as much skill as you do to play.



Well, there's a huge obvious difference between threatening people with violence and shutting down your own company. Don't know why you don't see it.
 
2012-02-14 03:37:44 PM  
WHAR SANDUSKY FARKER WHAR
 
2012-02-14 03:37:56 PM  
I'm from Ohio and I'm only anti-union on days that end in "y".
 
2012-02-14 04:08:54 PM  
There was a time and place for Unions; now is not the time, here is not the place.

Anyone who wishes to argue, just look at the Bonneville Power Administration in the Northwest for a great example. The unions have the government by the balls and are making it difficult for everyone except the overpaid union members.

When you have a glorified GED and are making $45/hr with OT at $90-120/hr, there is a problem - especially since most only due about 15-25hrs/week of actual work. Add this to the fact that electrical engineers make less than operators (think Homer Simpson) - ugh... As a rate payer, I am pissed.

EE: 40-60/hrs week; ~$90-$110k/yr; No overtime but comp-time, which is almost never able to be taken; and a ton of responsibility.

Operator: 40hrs/week; $45-55/hr; guaranteed 8hrs/week of OT if desired (4hrs/wk mandatory) at $90-110/hr.; guaranteed 4 hours of comp-time a week - which they are guaranteed to have to off; and the ridiculous protections of a union. Responsibility to report problems to the engineers to take care of.

/Ex-BPA EE. I am biased. I can't blame the union members personally, but professionally there is a huge discrepancy.
 
2012-02-14 04:32:41 PM  

Merkin Ball: There was a time and place for Unions; now is not the time, here is not the place.

Anyone who wishes to argue, just look at the Bonneville Power Administration in the Northwest for a great example. The unions have the government by the balls and are making it difficult for everyone except the overpaid union members.

When you have a glorified GED and are making $45/hr with OT at $90-120/hr, there is a problem - especially since most only due about 15-25hrs/week of actual work. Add this to the fact that electrical engineers make less than operators (think Homer Simpson) - ugh... As a rate payer, I am pissed.

EE: 40-60/hrs week; ~$90-$110k/yr; No overtime but comp-time, which is almost never able to be taken; and a ton of responsibility.

Operator: 40hrs/week; $45-55/hr; guaranteed 8hrs/week of OT if desired (4hrs/wk mandatory) at $90-110/hr.; guaranteed 4 hours of comp-time a week - which they are guaranteed to have to off; and the ridiculous protections of a union. Responsibility to report problems to the engineers to take care of.

/Ex-BPA EE. I am biased. I can't blame the union members personally, but professionally there is a huge discrepancy.


Would you be okay with half of those union workers being fired and the other half having their wages cut in half? Are you jealous of their wages and benefits, and would rather their pay be cut than your own increased? Are those union workers your employees, and you pay them with your own personal money instead of your company's money?

If the answer to all of these questions is "No," then I simply cannot fathom your problem with unions.
 
2012-02-14 04:50:27 PM  
King Something:

Would you be okay with half of those union workers being fired and the other half having their wages cut in half?

Why would I have to choose both? Why would it be half? I would say a cut by 30% across the board would be good.

Are you jealous of their wages and benefits, and would rather their pay be cut than your own increased?

Duh. When I was there, their pay was increased 3.77% each year - mine was frozen for the last two I was there.

Are those union workers your employees, and you pay them with your own personal money instead of your company's money?

I supervised some of them. I am starting to see you logic is quite flawed. First, I am a rate payer, so yes, what I pay on my electricity bill is directly related to what they get payed. Pay them less, I pay less. I believe this is how it works in all businesses. And why would I still want them to make the same amount that they are making today? Most of them are already making 40-70k more then the average person in the town they live in.

If the answer to all of these questions is "No," then I simply cannot fathom your problem with unions.

Oh, I get it.. You are anti-union too. Sorry, I am bit slow today...
 
2012-02-14 04:56:17 PM  

Merkin Ball:
/Ex-BPA EE. I am biased. I can't blame the union members personally, but professionally there is a huge discrepancy.


So if I hear you right, what you're saying is that you're upset that a group of employees can bargain for better wages and benefits collectively, than you can individually?

Hmm... sounds like maybe you should unite with your fellow EEs in some way... organize yourselves into something solid, with airity...

But wait, no, unions are for people who get their hands dirty, right?

I honestly think one of the biggest and best tricks the capital owners ever pulled was convincing vast swathes of the middle class that unions were for their inferiors. Instead of the truth, which is that union jobs are what moved many families INTO the middle class.

I personally would love to see IT workers get more organized. Think about it: they are skilled technicians, whose labor are vital to the functioning of most corporations. Difficult to scab over, yet perpetually shat on. Maybe then you'd get management to listen to you, instead of buying the overpriced junk from the cute sales rep...

Honestly, I'd love to see it just for the lulz of watching management try & negotiate with borderline Asperger's band of nerds who have the power to Shut Down Everything if they aren't treated fairly...
 
2012-02-14 05:25:28 PM  

Merkin Ball: Would you be okay with half of those union workers being fired and the other half having their wages cut in half?

Why would I have to choose both? Why would it be half? I would say a cut by 30% across the board would be good.


The "half" thing was just me pulling numbers out of my ass. My point was to ask if you would be okay with firing some union workers and cutting the wages of the rest. You seem to be okay with the pay cut but not the layoffs - not an indefensible position in and of itself, except that in most cases the person who would make the decision to cut union workers' pay (and by how much)not only makes significantly more than the workers whose pay is being cut, but that person would get a huge bonus for keeping payroll costs down.


Are you jealous of their wages and benefits, and would rather their pay be cut than your own increased?

Duh. When I was there, their pay was increased 3.77% each year - mine was frozen for the last two I was there.


Would your union dues have offset the wage increase had you joined the union? Were you unable to join the union due to not having the right kind of job (for example, not being able to join the International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs, and Nuclear Technicians because you're an electrical engineer)? Because if not, then I don't see why you are complaining about the union workers' annual pay raises which you could have gotten by joining the union.

And if the answer to the second question is "Yes," you and your coworkers need (or "needed") either a union or a stronger union than the one you have/had.

Are those union workers your employees, and you pay them with your own personal money instead of your company's money?

I supervised some of them. I am starting to see you logic is quite flawed. First, I am a rate payer, so yes, what I pay on my electricity bill is directly related to what they get payed. Pay them less, I pay less. I believe this is how it works in all businesses. And why would I still want them to make the same amount that they are making today? Most of them are already making 40-70k more then the average person in the town they live in.


Your electric bill is the source of their income, not your own personal bank account. If you work as a manager at a supermarket and buy your groceries at that same supermarket, you aren't personally paying your subordinates' salaries.
And I doubt that a business which cuts union workers' wages would also lower the prices of its goods and/or services, given the reasons why any company would cut any worker's wages in the first place (cost reduction, padding for the quarterly report, punishing that worker for farting in a crowded elevator, etc.)

As for your complaint that union workers make 40-70k more per year than most of the other people who live in your town, I don't see how cutting union workers' pay will benefit non-union workers. If the bosses who make the decision to cut the pay of the lower-level union workers decide to pass the savings to someone else in the company, chances are the lower-level non-union workers aren't gonna be the people in the company to receive those savings (see my earlier example of the higher-ups getting bonuses for keeping payroll down).


If the answer to all of these questions is "No," then I simply cannot fathom your problem with unions.

Oh, I get it.. You are anti-union too. Sorry, I am bit slow today...


You must be VERY slow today if you read what I wrote and concluded that I'm anti-union.
 
2012-02-14 06:01:04 PM  

jigger: Philip Francis Queeg: If you really believed in the free market you'd want every share holder out there to have every incentive to ensure that the companies they are the owners of behave in a proper manner. Why should the shareholder receive the benefits of the companies actions while being shielded from the consequences? That is a perversion of the Free Market which you so revere.

I'm amazed that you would want to warp the Free Market in favor of the investor only.

Pretty retarded. And there would be no law shielding anyone, just judges with some common farking sense.

But if you want to go that far, how about applying full liability to every customer of a corporation? You gave them money, you must be party to every transgression ever made by that corporation. Every employee too.


Customers do not receive a share of the profits. They do not own the assets of the corporation. They do not have a say in who manages the corporation.
Do you not understand the basics of corporate governance?
 
2012-02-14 06:07:41 PM  

werekoala: e it j


I fully admit that I would have liked to join a union. Yes, that is hypocritical of me, but why wouldn't I. Unfortunately, being a government GS employee it reduces your rights. A GS employee is by definition, exempt for the FLSA. I agree with you 100% that unions helped create the middle class, unfortunately, it does not mean that they are necessarily the answer to keeping the middle class alive. The problem I have is that the unions have too much power and are helping (NOTE, I did not say responsible for) driving a lot of our skilled labor out of the US.

I too would love to see the IT crowd rise up.



King Something:

First, in the example I was using, the bosses who make those decisions only make 150k/yr and they don't get bonuses if they cut spending. You can look this up and verify all of it as it is free to the public.

Union dues are usually not that much in retrospect, if they are, wouldn't you consider this borderline corrupt?

Again, I could not join a union. Well, that is not 100% true: I could join a union that had zero bargaining ability - look up GS employee and look at the rules for being an exempt employee. (And again, I left partially due to this. Now the BPA is going to spend another +200k/yr (training, moving, salary, hiring) to train someone else before they see the reality and leave too - I was the 3rd engineer in 4 years to do so and I was one of the longest lasting). Shouldn't take too much to see the problem with this system.

Every company has a profit margin they hold onto. That is, a goal, if they make more, YAY!!! if they make less, BOO! In the specific case I was referring to, the BPA does not make a profit or lose. They are the only government entity where they are set to break even every year. I know this is special and does not apply to almost any other company out there. However, in my example, yes, my electricity bill, combined with all my neighbors does go to paying employees. If the pay of the unions dropped by 30%, I would see a difference in my electrical bill every month (no bonuses to give to execs). By how much would be for the econs to work out. Again, I realize this is a special case. However, if you were to take your statement that basically states that the income of employees does not relate to the price of goods I would suggest one thing to ponder: If company A was able to lower prices due to a cut in pay (overhead), wouldn't company A now have a market advantage over company B?

I wasn't trying to say that by cutting their pay it would benefit those in town. I was saying that the need to make their current amount is simply not justified (not by their education, not by their experience, and not by the local cost of living). They could take a pay cut and still be doing well. Of course that probably just opened up a new discussion on the definition of 'well'....

I agree that in some cases the money does roll up hill. But I also see that sometimes - more often than not - this is not the case. Look at how many companies find it easier to lay people off than reduce pay because the unions won't let them. What about companies that are traded? What about the non-union companies that are trying to compete against unions?

I think if more people tried to take politics out of it (I know it is impossible) and just look at from a common sense approach, they too would agree that unions are overall bad these days.

/Yes, I am a bit slow today... I really thought that your questions at first were just playing devil's advocate by trying to show flaws in the pro-union debate.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report