Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to bjbrock
Re: CWA wants national healthcare the thing is fair means different things to different people. To me I don't see how it is fair for a company to pay the entire cost of someone's health insurance? Why should they?
it is NOT fair for the union or any employee to ask that their employer to pay for it all. but then you have the greedy unions who think it is fair only to sell someone else out later.
EHHH a President to force you back to work? Bush would but you can bet Qwest would start locking out these unions and make them either work non-union or start hiring new ones. |
|
MeKuN
join:2004-07-21
Eugene, OR | Stop with your anti union propaganda. Beat a dead horse lately? |
|
| said by MeKuN:Stop with your anti union propaganda. Beat a dead horse lately? seriously, huh.
hotboi (cute handle, by the way) seems to really have a problem with unions and the real men that support them. |
|
 Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA
4 edits | Hey, don't start insinuating that only 'real men' support unions. Some people have valid gripes with unions. One of the biggest gripes with unions is that it forces the company to keep or pay higher pay to individuals who just don't have the real job skills necessary instead of finding a person who would actually be worth the pay and that will get the job done. Another gripe is that a lot of people believe unions tend to demand too much and are unreasonable. Supporting or not supporting a union is a iffy thing. I believe unions are beneficial as long as they don't demand too much and are reasonable. If utilized properly, unionized workers will be happy and the company will be happy. As it is though, companies tend to be too greedy and unions tend to be unreasonable and demand too much. Hence, the constant fighting when it is time to negotiate a new contract. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| true.
I don't see why a company should keep someone on their payroll if they don't do their share of work. I also don't see where a company should have to pay $40 an hour to someone who sits on their ass all day putting a sticker on a car door. and on top of that pay their entire health care bill. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to MeKuN
and no i won't
tell your Reps to VOTE NO FOR THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT!
Why does Obama say we NEED unions and want to unionize America and then WANT TO EXPAND WELFARE!!! WTF! Talk about someone who is confused and a hypocrite. Obama is it! |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to mystryfiostk
if you're so called "real men" worked like they should they wouldnt need the unions to get their pay. instead they shouldnt be lazy and they'd get paid their wage.
Also "real" men do not sit on their ass all day making their $35+ an hour putting a sticker on a car door. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:the thing is fair means different things to different people. To me I don't see how it is fair for a company to pay the entire cost of someone's health insurance? Why should they? it is NOT fair for the union or any employee to ask that their employer to pay for it all. but then you have the greedy unions who think it is fair only to sell someone else out later. EHHH a President to force you back to work? Bush would but you can bet Qwest would start locking out these unions and make them either work non-union or start hiring new ones. Try responding to my post on another thread, where I point out that the tax code incentivizes companies to provide employee health care (all expenses are pre-tax, for example). And believe me, it's not about greed. If it was, CWA would have 'stopped the clock' on the existing contract, in order to continue to collect dues. By letting the contract expire, the Union can no longer collect dues until a new contract is in place (all moot now as a tentative agreement exists). |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | reply to hottboiinnc
We have to be realistic. There are plenty of people who do work their butts off that deserve the rate of pay negotiated by the unions...just there is a lot that do not as well. |
|
| reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:Hey, don't start insinuating that only 'real men' support unions. Some people have valid gripes with unions. One of the biggest gripes with unions is that it forces the company to keep or pay higher pay to individuals who just don't have the real job skills necessary instead of finding a person who would actually be worth the pay and that will get the job done.~snip~ Show me an instance (with names and dates)where someone who should be fired has not been fired. Where I work, management doesn't seem to have any problem firing people for performance. About the only thing the Union does is make sure you can't be fired as a result of management playing favorites, or for arbitrary reasons. Believe me, if it's performance related, you are out the door. Anyone who believes different has been drinking to much 'trickle down' kool-aid! |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA
2 edits | Okay...at a local grocer. A woman was not doing her job well at all. She was a slacker. When management starting harping on her to get with the program, she started making waves with the union. The union promised to fight if they tried to fire her. So the grocer, kept this woman on even though she sucked at her job. She eventually quit anyway. Me and others were not surprised at all and thought it was crap.
I applaud your employer then but, not all employers are the same. Any employer will want to axe anyone with sub par performance but, unions have fought so a person in the same kind of situation can keep their job. |
|
| reply to Steve B
i don't have a problem with one's differing opinions about organized labor (as misguided as they may be). hey, this country "elected" the bush twice, so anything's possible these days.
the assault on the middle class that reagan began twenty-five years has been well crafted and well executed by the extreme right. the middle class has been their best ally, blaming themselves for this country's failures. they prey on fear. fear of the unions, fear of the immigrant, the homosexuals, etc etc.
the heritage foundation, pnac, and the ayn rand institute couldn't have scripted it any better.
while i don't want to make any of this a personal attack on the "boi", what spurred my response were the incessant anti-union remarks bordering on personal attacks that he's posted on any of recent union related news posts.
|
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA
1 edit | In regards to the union topic, I understand what you're talking about.
However, on the other topic about Republicans preying on fear. The Dems do the exact same thing. An instance, that I remember quite clearly is when Dick Gephart was on the stump saying schools will close, children will starve around the country if Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994. Well, Republicans gained control and the supposed social doomsday never happened. My point is scare tactics are used by both sides whether it is justified or not. The fear of homosexuals is from religion. Also, most Republicans would welcome immigrants but, they want it done legally and not coming here to live off government aid. |
|
| reply to viperlmw
The hottboi troll is getting fed good today!  |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:the thing is fair means different things to different people. To me I don't see how it is fair for a company to pay the entire cost of someone's health insurance? "Fair" in a business environment is what you can negotiate. When executives negotiate obscene employment contracts, defenders of capitalism (more appropriate called socialized capitalism) say "you're just upset you couldn't negotiate something similar." Which is probably true.
But, when workers collectively negotiate, suddenly it's antithetical to free market principles? Why is that?
Mark |
|
| reply to Steve B
said by Steve B:Okay...at a local grocer. A woman was not doing her job well at all. She was a slacker. When management starting harping on her to get with the program, she started making waves with the union. The union promised to fight if they tried to fire her. So the grocer, kept this woman on even though she sucked at her job. She eventually quit anyway. Me and others were not surprised at all and thought it was crap. I applaud your employer then but, not all employers are the same. Any employer will want to axe anyone with sub par performance but, unions have fought so a person in the same kind of situation can keep their job. What grocer? Were there any grievance proceedings? Was she on any sort of disciplinary status? Who's definition of sucked? I guarantee if she really wasn't good at her job, management had numerous avenues. It was probably more like she didn't get along well with others. That is not typically a terminable offense. And as you noted, the situation resolved itself. I don't see the problem. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by hottboiinnc:the thing is fair means different things to different people. To me I don't see how it is fair for a company to pay the entire cost of someone's health insurance? "Fair" in a business environment is what you can negotiate. When executives negotiate obscene employment contracts, defenders of capitalism (more appropriate called socialized capitalism) say "you're just upset you couldn't negotiate something similar." Which is probably true. But, when workers collectively negotiate, suddenly it's antithetical to free market principles? Why is that? Mark Yea, I have a difficult time understanding why executives can get free medical, but the rank and file can't. |
|
Steve BPremium
join:2004-08-02
Seattle, WA | reply to viperlmw
The other workers did not get a long with her because she was being lazy. When management approached her to shape up, she filed the complaint saying that the store was not being fair to her. The were talks done between management and the Union and the store kept her to keep the Union happy. Then one day she was just gone. I guess she found another job. In the end the situation resolved itself so now there isn't an issue but, there was. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Steve B:The other workers did not get a long with her because she was being lazy. Anyone can come up with anecdotal examples of how a union (or, lack thereof) made a certain situation better or worse.
I'm not thrilled with unions because it promotes the same adversarial, "loot it if you can" mentality that predominates the executive ranks. It doesn't seem constructive. But, it may be the only tool available. Which is the real problem.
Personally, I'd like to see something like Workplace Democracy. Where each worker has a vested interest (beyond a day-to-day "employ at will" relationship).
I believe society has a legitimate interest to promote such "next level" labor laws, primarily due to the fact that these businesses come to society to obtain a corporate charter (to shield officers and investors from their personal liability). It would be entirely consensual. If you don't want society dictating how you must treat employees (or cap executive pay, etc.), then remain a private business. Don't seek a socially-created corporate entity to make your business venture more advantagous for yourself.
I.e., society already has their hands in business through the creation of corporate charters by the State legislature. Enforcing Workplace Democracy wouldn't be something new. Just adding balance in return for what society is already doing for business.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·Insight Communic..
| reply to hottboiinnc
Not fair when said employer's work enviroment poses hazards not seen in outher jobs. I say if your job evvolves you needing to be out in the elements, working around outher utility facilities (esp high voltage lines) or out in roadways, then yes its fair to ask for full coverage picked up by said employer. Its called taking care of your employess that keep you running. Ask your self this, next time theres a power outage, lets say after a severe thunderstorm. Do you want someone out there working for 10/hr 40% employee pays insurance with numerious loopholes so that it realy dosent cover anything, thats worrying about making rent, car payment, ect. Trying to then concentrate on not getting struck by lighning, raising the bucket into lines that a fellow coworker in the same "benefits" package said were deenergized, but dident tag that circuit out, so another bonehead flips on the circuit figuring thats the reason for the outage, and thus frying the outher guy further delaying you getting back to watching tv, ect. Or someone paid well, is happy and has a secure future bc his employer values him, and rewards him for it with full health insurance, retirement, high standards for skill workers, ect..... |
|
