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.

(Forbes)   Schadenfreude time: Unions cry that ObamaCare will shatter their benefits and destroy the 40 hour work week. You supported it, you live with it   (forbes.com) divider line 357
    More: Fail, obamacare, United Food, health insurance, Richard Trumka, perverse incentives, American middle class, UFCW, Teamsters  
•       •       •

2771 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 04:25:30 PM  
What no one here has mentioned is that none of this is of importance to unions with any power.  Most unions (at least in manufacturing) have multi-year contracts that would not be able to be legally broken requiring them to continue the same hours. Also unions would go on strike if the companies tried to cut hours and healthcare.

Along with these features of unions, manufacturing requires X number of man hours per week (all 168 usually).  If a company has 4 shifts (days, afternoons, nights and off) each day each shift will work 42 hours per week in order to keep the machines running 24/7.  This means the company would have to hire 1 person for every 5 already working at the company in order to keep manufacturing at the same pace.
 
2013-07-15 04:25:32 PM  

Summercat: My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them. In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives. Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z. There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly. So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack. Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done. They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work. What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly. This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job. I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer. The stupid in her m ...

Only the store manager is salaried. My mother is hourly.


Then the situation is even worse than I thought.  The District manager will risk store top line sales to punish a store manager.  Besides finding another job (not easy to replace income with a job change given the way companies like to think these days) the best advice is "Stop caring, have a beer".

The district manager is trying to take a short cut on getting rid of a manager that he doesn't like.  Six months from now either the store manager will have quit (he finally got the memo), or since sales fell like a stone (no shiat - all the stock is in the back still boxed) will have been fired.  Is the assistant manager that is slacking off a "good friend" of the current store manager?
 
2013-07-15 04:27:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: This is not the CHANGE that we HOPED for.

Isn't the change republicans hoped for some kind of theocratic oligarchy?

I don't know what republicans wanted.


www.demotivationalposters.org
 
2013-07-15 04:29:12 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.


200 million then..
 
2013-07-15 04:31:06 PM  

Alphakronik: Yes, let me read Forbes for accurate analysis of labor issues.


I'll give a summary: The plebs should take what we think right to give them, and adore us for it.
 
2013-07-15 04:32:48 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..


I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.
 
2013-07-15 04:33:00 PM  

Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.


Here's a thought... instead of trying to pull someone else down, why not boost yourself up?

Folks like you bending over and taking whatever your employers want to give them (or being a cheap ass if you are an employer) are what is destroying unions and making decent benefits and pensions, once a norm in the private sector, as rare as he's teeth today. You gave that all up on purpose, and now you want to take from those few who still have because you no longer have.

The ultimate in selfishness.
 
2013-07-15 04:34:51 PM  

FunkyBlue: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Those benefits make up for public employees salaries being on average 20% below comparable positions in the private sector. Whereas many public sector employees get bonuses or raises annually, most public sector employees do not. At my last job at a K-12 district, I hadn't seen a raise in over 5 years. The current job just got 3%, but that was after a salary survey said we were over 10% lower than the industry average in wages and that 3% was the first raise in years. And I know for every multi-billion dollar CEO salary out there, someone will point out how one public-sector person is making a huge amount, but it's really not the norm. Most of us don't make that much for what we do. Myself, I'm a Lotus Notes/server administrator that normally pulls about $75-80K a year in the private sector. My salary is under $60K after a one time raise of 3%, which was the first in almost 6 years.

So, sometimes that lower pay scale is compensated with a better healthcare package but when money problems happen, as they always do in public sector, then the first thing to get more expensive for employees is health care and benefits are routinely trimmed back and employee costs and co-pays almost always increase.

The problem people don't seem to see is that public sector entities don't make a profit like private sector does. If public sector costs rise, same as private sector, public sector entities cannot just increase the cost of their services because they don't really make anything tangible for sale. This is especially true with school districts. Schools produce learning, intelligence, and hopefully, diplomas. If their costs rise, all they can do is cut unless the public votes to give them more money. So they cut teachers, they cut classes, they cut wages, and they cut benefits. If Ford loses a fight about insurance with their unions, Ford can tack on a few dollars to each car and make up the losses. A school can try and raise fees, but that only means people aren't going to vote in a new levy because the schools raised their fees.


Do you have a pension?
 
2013-07-15 04:34:55 PM  
Unions are the free market's response to corporate power. If employees can't turn to unions for help leveling the playing field, then they'll turn to the government. Don't want the government mucking about in your business? Let unions do what they're designed to do.
 
2013-07-15 04:35:08 PM  

rewind2846: as rare as hen's teeth today.


/FTFM
 
2013-07-15 04:35:57 PM  
img.weiku.com
 
2013-07-15 04:38:11 PM  

b2theory: Do you have a pension?


1. What does that have to do with it?
2. You do know that many public sector employees contribute to their pensions, right?
3. You also know that many of those same employees will never collect social security as well?

Trying to get more for yourself instead of taking from someone else can be a good thing.
 
2013-07-15 04:38:15 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.


ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?
 
2013-07-15 04:39:26 PM  
You supported it; you live with it.

Okay. Yes. That's the idea.
 
2013-07-15 04:39:28 PM  

xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...


butt,butt, BUSH!
 
2013-07-15 04:40:10 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt


butt, butt, BUSH!
 
2013-07-15 04:40:48 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?


The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.
 
2013-07-15 04:43:39 PM  
Are we allowed to take this mentality and use it against people who were for The Patriot Act before they were against it?
 
2013-07-15 04:44:21 PM  

trey101: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt

butt, butt, BUSH!


It was actually the Republican answer to HillaryCare... It was between the Bushes
 
2013-07-15 04:48:34 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?   students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?


1)  Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker.

2) If public poeple on Medicar/Medicade, how girrl get praegnent?
 
2013-07-15 04:49:40 PM  

Aarontology: Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.


Well, yeah. Just like for liberals: launching the IRS at their friends is bad, launching the IRS at their enemies is good.
 
2013-07-15 04:52:48 PM  

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


In other words, let's fix the problem we lefties created by doing exactly what we've wanted since the beginning?
 
2013-07-15 04:53:11 PM  
All I know is... if you dont get picked up and cant pay them dues... the union disappears like a fart in a wind storm... For some union's, the concept has decayed into a business model where it looks after itself first...
 
2013-07-15 04:56:10 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.


yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but comparing to the rest of the world I find counter productive in the ACA discussion.
 
2013-07-15 04:58:23 PM  
I might cry, too, if I cared about what Unions thought.
 
2013-07-15 04:58:30 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.

yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but comparing to the rest of the world I find counter productive in the ACA discussion.


What specific graphs would you concede to; list them.

Until then it's going to be a lot of information posts and you rejecting every single one of them.
 
2013-07-15 04:58:42 PM  

red5ish: tenpoundsofcheese: It is so cute that the union leaders and other uninformed people didn't understand the line: "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

no where was it ever promised that the employer has to keep providing that plan.


This is true, Obamacare or not.  Actually, most employers have been offering less and less and many have been eliminating coverage altogether.  That is why Obama was elected twice, running on platforms of healthcare reform.  Most people realize there is a need to increase access and contain costs.The Holy Free Market is not providing for efficient allocation in this area.
 
2013-07-15 05:02:52 PM  

RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.

yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but co ...


I can't do all of your research for you. There's a pile of information the size of a mountain range about the health care and insurance systems in first-world countries around the globe freely available on the internet. If you want it, you should look for it yourself.

Now if you want to pay me, I'll consider widening my stance...
 
2013-07-15 05:03:30 PM  
my point was just don't post graphs and point and say "look!!!"

How about a graph of UHC vs ACA vs Current Costs for a baby delivery?

Premiums of UHC vs ACA vs Medicare?   (Medicare just as a $100 a month baseline)
 
2013-07-15 05:04:07 PM  
I have a theory that unions knew perfectly well that this was going to happen. Unions membership has been dropping for years so they didn't fight a bad consequence that was obviously going to happen. Jobs get crappier, hours drop, and the unions stand by ready to swoop in and make everything better.
 
2013-07-15 05:05:16 PM  

Raharu: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?


Step 1: invent time machine.
Step 2: alter time line to avoid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Step 3: Profit Hitler and the Nazis win World War 2.


FTFY
 
2013-07-15 05:06:34 PM  

Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Serious Black: RaiderFanMikeP: Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?

can you explain how you would pay for UHC?   What If i dont want to pay for UHC ? will you force me to pay?  how would you enforce that?

You're already being forced to pay. In fact, you're being forced to pay TWICE:

[theincidentaleconomist.com image 540x409]

reproduce graph for only countries with 300 million or more people

A sample size of one is hardly generalizable.

200 million then..

I'll do you a solid and point out that the next largest countries by population on that graph are Japan and Mexico, and both of those are just north of 100 million.

ok next question,   what is this a graph of?  students in high school?  LOL

I assume its payments for health care.. where 8% is public.. and 9.4% private   ?  is public people on Medicare/Medicaid?

The dark blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through public means. The light blue bars represent a percentage of GDP which the country spends on health care through private means. The very light bar for the Netherlands represents direct out-of-pocket expenses that they cull out of private means. There is no relationship between the size of the bars and how large a proportion of the country's population has health insurance.

yes.. i can understand that.  my point about population is the top 5 counties by population are China, India, USA, Indonesia and Brazil.  its alot of people to cover and understanding the economy of scale  does it apply for Healthcare?  is it apples to apples?  even percentage wise..

everyone has babies.. is there a chart on the cost of delivering a baby as a percentage of annual salary?  and does the costs include the same items as other countries?    i can see charts for the USA but co ...

I can't do all of your research for you. There's a pile of information the size of a mountain range about the health care and insurance systems in first-world countries around the globe freely available on the internet. If you want it, you should look for it yourself.

Now if you want to pay me, I'll consider widening my stance...


He is a pigeon on a chessboard, at this point.

I'd forget it, personally.
 
2013-07-15 05:10:20 PM  

jjorsett: Aarontology: Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.

Well, yeah. Just like for liberals: launching the IRS at their friends is bad, launching the IRS at their enemies is good.


When did that happen?
 
2013-07-15 05:10:57 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: Do you have a pension?

1. What does that have to do with it?
2. You do know that many public sector employees contribute to their pensions, right?
3. You also know that many of those same employees will never collect social security as well?

Trying to get more for yourself instead of taking from someone else can be a good thing.


A_1: It makes a huge difference as nearly all private sector employees don't have defined benefits package. You are on your own. The reality is that if most private sector workers want to retire between 55-60 they are going to have to save much of that "additional" salary.

A_2: While it is true that many public sector employees pay into their pension, typically the government makes the lion share of the contribution. Also, if the investments that make up my 401k don't appreciate then I am SOL. If a public sector pension fund underperforms the shortfall will be made up by the tax payers(if they can afford it)

A_3: By many you mean roughly a quarter. If they won't receive Social Security that typically means they didn't pay SS taxes and their plans have been compensated.

I don't want to take anything away. I just think people with pensions should recognize that they have something of serious value.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:01 PM  

jjorsett: Well, yeah. Just like for liberals: launching the IRS at their friends is bad, launching the IRS at their enemies is good.


This is just sad.
No liberal ever supported that, and it didn't even happen.

Have to get in that BSABSVR quota, right?
 
2013-07-15 05:19:15 PM  

Testiclaw: He is a pigeon on a chessboard, at this point.


I've never heard this phrase before.  Then I interneted it, and find it appropriate.
 
2013-07-15 05:20:41 PM  

born_yesterday: Testiclaw: He is a pigeon on a chessboard, at this point.

I've never heard this phrase before.  Then I interneted it, and find it appropriate.


Verbing weirds things.
 
2013-07-15 05:21:03 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-15 05:21:27 PM  

rewind2846: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Here's a thought... instead of trying to pull someone else down, why not boost yourself up?

Folks like you bending over and taking whatever your employers want to give them (or being a cheap ass if you are an employer) are what is destroying unions and making decent benefits and pensions, once a norm in the private sector, as rare as he's teeth today. You gave that all up on purpose, and now you want to take from those few who still have because you no longer have.

The ultimate in selfishness.


Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.
 
2013-07-15 05:22:31 PM  

SilentStrider: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

Because obamacare will end all life in the universe and bring about the end times.

If the end times means I get to watch St. Peter laugh in a Republican's face when they ask to get into heaven, then bring 'em on.


I always imagined the Rapture as some sort of Outer Limits episode where the self-righteous get removed to their own world and it turns into hell while the Left Behind benefit from their departure.
 
2013-07-15 05:25:00 PM  

Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.


And he's wrong because...?
 
2013-07-15 05:28:24 PM  

b2theory: I don't want to take anything away. I just think people with pensions should recognize that they have something of serious value.


They do have something of value... and so did a good portion of the people in the private sector at one time, along with high union membership. Yet in the decades after the 1960's they chose to give those things away, and now whine that they no longer exist. Or more precisely, that someone else has them.

Employers chose to implement 401k plans instead of defined benefits, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to redefine benefits packages to eliminate dental and vision plans, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to outsource and send as many jobs overseas as possible, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to cut hours and pay, citing "business reasons", code for "we have to buy the CEO another gold yacht and get shareholders another nickel per share", employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers now choose to blame the ACA for all their assholiness, and as usual employees will bend over and say "okay".

The private sector has given up it's most powerful force for equality, the union. It is their fault they have lost whatever little that public sector employees still have, and it is not right to try and take from those workers because of this.
My aunt calls this train of thought "crabs in a bucket", where in trying to get out of the trap crabs will fight and kill each other to get to the opening, dragging the other crabs down where they are.
 
2013-07-15 05:32:35 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I have a theory that unions knew perfectly well that this was going to happen. Unions membership has been dropping for years so they didn't fight a bad consequence that was obviously going to happen. Jobs get crappier, hours drop, and the unions stand by ready to swoop in and make everything better.


Perhaps...  Health insurance is supposed to be a Union-negotiated benefit.  Now that everyone must have health insurance and anyone who cant afford it goes on a state exchange, there's no point in paying dues to get what you could get for free anyway.

Pincy: Someone explain to me again why employers should be involved in our health care at all?  Why didn't we just go to UHC and be done with it?


Healthcare used to be an untaxed benefit that an employer would throw into your compensation package as an added bonus - so in a sense, the income tax is to thank for us even looking to our employers for health insurance.

Why I cant consult my doctor, buy an insurance plan that they suggest I get, pay for it, take it across state lines if I need to, change it as my health needs change, and keep all information between myself, my doctor and my family makes too much sense.  Thats why we cant have it.
 
2013-07-15 05:34:10 PM  

Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.


I'm not in any union, and I'm not a public employee. I work in the private sector, and am fortunate enough to be employed by a place where they have a full benefits package plus a 401k and a company paid for pension plan.

What you need to do is to realize that over the last 30 or so years your employers and their puppetmasters on Wall street have f*cked you raw and bleeding, and you let them. At least a union would have given you a condom and some lube.
 
2013-07-15 05:38:39 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.

And he's wrong because...?


Well, lets rewind (Ha!) the conversation if we're going to do that.

rewind2846: Cletus C.: Public sector is where the unions are really going to be hammered. Many government employees at all levels have sweetheart health plans with minimal contributions. The pressure will be on to make those benefits more in line with what most Americans will have.

Here's a thought... instead of trying to pull someone else down, why not boost yourself up?

Folks like you bending over and taking whatever your employers want to give them (or being a cheap ass if you are an employer) are what is destroying unions and making decent benefits and pensions, once a norm in the private sector, as rare as he's teeth today. You gave that all up on purpose, and now you want to take from those few who still have because you no longer have.

The ultimate in selfishness.


Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.
First, I was making an observation that I expect some backlash against government union employees as the ACA kicks in. The deals they have negotiated will look pretty darn nice compared with the level of coverage and cost many, many employees outside government will be up against.

Just an observation.

Then it becomes me attacking unions, being jealous of union workers, me trying to destroy unions, me bending over and taking it from the man because I'm not in a union. And I apparently gave something up on purpose and now resent unions and union workers because of that.

It's pure union dogma. Not based in fact, personal or otherwise, in this case. In a union hall it's something you can nod your head, chant, dance and more to. But in this context it's just a slab of rotting hyperbole slapped down by rote.
 
2013-07-15 05:39:31 PM  

jst3p: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

You should take another economics class, it is a lot more complicated than that.


Next semester he'll get to take ECON 102-Macroeconomics. I predict he still won't understand.
 
2013-07-15 05:41:14 PM  
Well the dreams of our grandfathers ("The Jetsons and all that") were that we would all work 20 hours a week jobs has finally come true!

The reality that is our nightmare is that you need three of them just to survive.
 
2013-07-15 05:43:21 PM  

rewind2846: Cletus C.: Your union bosses need to back off a bit. You're fully in and fully foaming.

I'm not in any union, and I'm not a public employee. I work in the private sector, and am fortunate enough to be employed by a place where they have a full benefits package plus a 401k and a company paid for pension plan.

What you need to do is to realize that over the last 30 or so years your employers and their puppetmasters on Wall street have f*cked you raw and bleeding, and you let them. At least a union would have given you a condom and some lube.


Actually, I'm good. Financially and mentally.
 
2013-07-15 05:45:07 PM  

trey101: xanadian: Well, Obamacare is the bastard son of what the Heritage Foundation once dreamed up...

butt,butt, BUshia


trey101: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, since it was originally a Republican plan, you knew workers would get hurt

butt, butt, BUSH!


inigomontoya.jpg
 
2013-07-15 05:51:23 PM  

rewind2846: b2theory: I don't want to take anything away. I just think people with pensions should recognize that they have something of serious value.

They do have something of value... and so did a good portion of the people in the private sector at one time, along with high union membership. Yet in the decades after the 1960's they chose to give those things away, and now whine that they no longer exist. Or more precisely, that someone else has them.

Employers chose to implement 401k plans instead of defined benefits, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to redefine benefits packages to eliminate dental and vision plans, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to outsource and send as many jobs overseas as possible, employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers chose to cut hours and pay, citing "business reasons", code for "we have to buy the CEO another gold yacht and get shareholders another nickel per share", employees bent over and said "okay".
Employers now choose to blame the ACA for all their assholiness, and as usual employees will bend over and say "okay".

The private sector has given up it's most powerful force for equality, the union. It is their fault they have lost whatever little that public sector employees still have, and it is not right to try and take from those workers because of this.
My aunt calls this train of thought "crabs in a bucket", where in trying to get out of the trap crabs will fight and kill each other to get to the opening, dragging the other crabs down where they are.


Something to keep in mind: the growth and proftability of publically-traded private sector companies is what funds most pensions public/private.

For example, the pension fund for Minnesota's teachers has to have annual returns in excess of 9% in order to be solvent over the long term. Since they are at the same trough as everyone else, they are drivers of the behavior you describe.

The rules are simple: maximize returns for your shareholders. It sucks when you are in a stagnant company. It is great when you are a shareholder. It's amusing when most people forget that they are the share holders.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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