Big words, Dave V1.0. Maybe you should shut the hell up until V2.0 comes out.
They are striking against a Red Cross blood services center. The Red Cross sells blood for a lot of money. This has nothing to do with their disaster services group. And anyway, are you suggesting that a charitable organization could never be a be a bad employer?
Your impression of Jesse Jackson does not interest me.
PS: when you talk about getting modded down and have the word "pussy" right in your signature, something tells me it might not just be a stalker.
Even then, you can get back to "who is responsible for either QA or dealing with employees who are caught sabotaging cars?" It's not the union, it's the management. That is they they make the big bucks.
It won't, necessarily. My argument is simply that total compensation going up is not really any consolation to me as an employee because that is not money I can spend. It would, however, allow the employees to attempt to hold the line on salary, creating more pressure on the business to figure out how to contain healthcare costs. Trouble is, it does not appear as if they're willing to lobby for some sort of healthcare system that resolves these problems, instead opting to lobby to get themselves exempted or to be allowed to push costs to employees or what have you.
Yes, they would. In a terrible economy where something is better than nothing, people will queue up and just be forced to get several jobs. That doesn't make it a desired way of running everything.
Do you really figure that the cars were unreliable because of construction and not design? I don't know for sure myself, but I suspect that cheap design and materials mattered more than labor. Figure a lot of that stuff is done by robots now anyway.
Depending on where you are, you can still get what you pay for. I feel my standard of living is pretty decent, such as it is, in a Northeastern city. Though that includes our healthcare system which sucks and is expensive everywhere.... but I'm talking about the things you can move to escape.
We're talking about "hours" vs. hours here, though. Slashing hours back to 40 is different than making everyone part time. And I'm really talking about purchasing power, not straight wages.
Unions are often formed when the workers realize they're all working for less than they're willing to work for but feel that they'd fare better advancing that point as a group.
Why would I want a job for life with some advancement potential and a nest egg for when I retire and some calm and stability when I could be looking for a job every six months and wondering if I'm next on the cutting block? I agree, sounds archaic.
I represent the technology department in my local. It is a difficult job in part for that reason. Most have never been in a union before, many think they shouldn't be either., or that kissing the boss' ass is good enough.
The thing that's funny to me is that people realize there are bad unions but don't seem to realize that there are any bad employers. Jon Stewart mentioned this in relationship to teachers... "there are shitty teachers? yeah, I don't know if you've noticed, but there's shitty everything."
Nah, there are just good and bad ones, like any type of organization. There are good and bad locals even. Trouble is, people scorned are way louder than happy people, and there's more money in finding dissatisfied union members to publicize (the side that likes that sort of point of view is the side with the money).
In my union's case (the best one at the workplace, but one that could do a lot more and has some of the same angry comments spoken about it), it is often a result of being stretched too thin. The local cannot afford to pay enough full time employees to be effective for 2500 people, so it relies on a lot of volunteers. Few people volunteer, and as they get squeezed by the employer during the downturn, they have less free time and more money pressures.
If unions were smart and contractually protected unionization or union time or codified benefits for being a volunteer in the union, maybe we'd be in a different place. Some locals I know have... but mine has not and it's becoming really hard for us in tough times.
While my union is an agency fee union, people DO decide to become members when they could pay 85% dues instead, and I guarantee you we would still have a lot of members if you didn't have to pay anything to be a non-member. The opposing side, however, wants to go further than that. One of the components of the Wisconsin law was that unions would have to sign up all of their members every year and recertify their union. Does that sound fair?
Slashdot Mirror
Big words, Dave V1.0. Maybe you should shut the hell up until V2.0 comes out.
They are striking against a Red Cross blood services center. The Red Cross sells blood for a lot of money. This has nothing to do with their disaster services group. And anyway, are you suggesting that a charitable organization could never be a be a bad employer?
Your impression of Jesse Jackson does not interest me.
PS: when you talk about getting modded down and have the word "pussy" right in your signature, something tells me it might not just be a stalker.
Exactly. So there are sometimes no reasons without the employees unionizing.
Even then, you can get back to "who is responsible for either QA or dealing with employees who are caught sabotaging cars?" It's not the union, it's the management. That is they they make the big bucks.
Would you prefer indentured servitude?
Does that look like evidence to you?
It won't, necessarily. My argument is simply that total compensation going up is not really any consolation to me as an employee because that is not money I can spend. It would, however, allow the employees to attempt to hold the line on salary, creating more pressure on the business to figure out how to contain healthcare costs. Trouble is, it does not appear as if they're willing to lobby for some sort of healthcare system that resolves these problems, instead opting to lobby to get themselves exempted or to be allowed to push costs to employees or what have you.
Yes, they would. In a terrible economy where something is better than nothing, people will queue up and just be forced to get several jobs. That doesn't make it a desired way of running everything.
Do you really figure that the cars were unreliable because of construction and not design? I don't know for sure myself, but I suspect that cheap design and materials mattered more than labor. Figure a lot of that stuff is done by robots now anyway.
Health Professionals and Allied Employees of NJ
Would you consider that to make you qualified to comment on "most unions?" In case you were not aware, there are more than, say, 5 unions.
But hidden away in the the healthcare number is inflated prices for the same or crappier care too (middleman expansion, etc.).
Depending on where you are, you can still get what you pay for. I feel my standard of living is pretty decent, such as it is, in a Northeastern city. Though that includes our healthcare system which sucks and is expensive everywhere.... but I'm talking about the things you can move to escape.
Unless you want to pay your bills and the depressed economy is keeping people unemployed.
We're talking about "hours" vs. hours here, though. Slashing hours back to 40 is different than making everyone part time. And I'm really talking about purchasing power, not straight wages.
Unions are often formed when the workers realize they're all working for less than they're willing to work for but feel that they'd fare better advancing that point as a group.
Both were talking about regional minimum wages. My area's is the same as federal, but it looks like the west coast does better...
Let me Google that for you...
Why would I want a job for life with some advancement potential and a nest egg for when I retire and some calm and stability when I could be looking for a job every six months and wondering if I'm next on the cutting block? I agree, sounds archaic.
So if everyone pays minimum wage, no one has the right to complain about anyone?
Citation needed.
People don't seem to realize that high morale is profitable and that turnover is not. It's not all about money.
I represent the technology department in my local. It is a difficult job in part for that reason. Most have never been in a union before, many think they shouldn't be either., or that kissing the boss' ass is good enough.
The thing that's funny to me is that people realize there are bad unions but don't seem to realize that there are any bad employers. Jon Stewart mentioned this in relationship to teachers... "there are shitty teachers? yeah, I don't know if you've noticed, but there's shitty everything."
Nah, there are just good and bad ones, like any type of organization. There are good and bad locals even. Trouble is, people scorned are way louder than happy people, and there's more money in finding dissatisfied union members to publicize (the side that likes that sort of point of view is the side with the money).
In my union's case (the best one at the workplace, but one that could do a lot more and has some of the same angry comments spoken about it), it is often a result of being stretched too thin. The local cannot afford to pay enough full time employees to be effective for 2500 people, so it relies on a lot of volunteers. Few people volunteer, and as they get squeezed by the employer during the downturn, they have less free time and more money pressures.
If unions were smart and contractually protected unionization or union time or codified benefits for being a volunteer in the union, maybe we'd be in a different place. Some locals I know have... but mine has not and it's becoming really hard for us in tough times.
While my union is an agency fee union, people DO decide to become members when they could pay 85% dues instead, and I guarantee you we would still have a lot of members if you didn't have to pay anything to be a non-member. The opposing side, however, wants to go further than that. One of the components of the Wisconsin law was that unions would have to sign up all of their members every year and recertify their union. Does that sound fair?