Where is everybody working with born rich management?
Where was I only talking about the rich?
the rich and bourgeois
You don't have to be an investment banker to help your slacker son get into a good university - after he drank he way through high school - and then help him into a good job fresh out of college - after drinking his way to a BA. A job that an "up from mah bootstraps" shmoe would have to work ten years to get. A being lawyer or manager of your local Wells Fargo branch will do quite nicely.
And anyone who actually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, busting their asses to get top grades and internships that turned into careers - will recognize those bourgeois babies a mile off.
Please I don't owe the poor sh**. I have worked my ads off to escape poverty
If that's actually the case then you've worked with no shortage of management who were born with a silver spoon in their asses. Yet you resent the poor more than the rich and bourgeois who were born on third base. Interesting.
That's still competing against the infinitely larger subsidies to the fossil fuel industry - whether direct tax subsidies or indirect like letting them drill public land and not clean up the environmental damage they produce. Then there's the massive inflation of demand by spending many billions per year on highways to move and more cars around.
No President who actually was somewhat for greening up the country
No, there wasn't. There was a guy who was a bigger oil man than Bush or Cheney, who bragged about how oil was being drilled faster than it could be delivered to market.
I am nearly 50 and still in high demand. Most people my age just want to work 9 to 5 and go home. Unlike them I push myself to keep up with the latest tech and aggressively manage my career.
How very Calvinist of you. Work will set you free...
and yet they are talking about the quality and reliability
Based on past results from the company - they aren't speaking totally out of their asses. They've done the same for years....next Toyota Camry will probably be above average for reliability, and the next Dodge Ram will be below.
Compared to corporate oligarchies or corporate dictatorships? You think through these talking points before posting them?
Anyways, it seems you've completely failed to defend your original point.
Says the person engaging in hand waiving and non sequiturs.
Corporate HR departments are great at screwing the best employees, the newest employees, and anyone notably different from the "typical" worker protected by being the boss's buddy
Fixed your nonsense for you. All these anti-union canards are pulled out of Ayn Rand's zombified ass - just as Steven Spielberg and Kevin Smith, who are both members of the same union, and not compensated in the same way.
You're avoiding the reality that the unions were a short term cudgel until progressive-era laws were put into place to prevent the abuses you refer to. Once political power was in the hands of a Teddy Roosevelt, let's say, or his nephew, things changed rapidly.
Riiiiight. Companies that exploits workers limb from literal limb are a thing of the past, like racism, sexism, and forest fires.
Could it just be that corruption in the US unions is the problem, not the unions as such?
What corruption is that - you know Hoffa's been dead for a couple of years now? Then there's the fact that the worst union corruption you can name is a drop in the olympic swimming pool of corporate corruption.
The truth is that the Big Three automakers were (and are) unable to respond to competitive stresses caused by places with lower wages being able to export into the US market.
Not so much a truth when at the time Germany made twice as many cars while paying their workers twice as much money.
So, no. What happened to the Big Three was their bottom lines resting on high-margin, gas guzzling vehicles, and that line fell apart after Katrina pushed gas prices over $4 a gallon. Same thing that happened to them in the 80's when the oil embargo hit and Japanese manufacturers ate their lunch.
Unions are rather shortsighted beasts and they cause more harm to manufacturing workers in the long run than they help. If you take a year-long or five year view, they are great. Look over a career's length, and the evidence is equivocal. Over 100 years, the union will kill any manufacturing business dead
Bullshit. The long term well-being of the union and its workers is inseparable from the the long term well-being of the company. As opposed to corporate executives, who are happy to give themselves raises and golden parachutes while driving the company into the ground. Just ask Marisa Mayer and Carly Fiorina, just to name two.
Unions are great at getting workers stuff when the going is good, but when it is rough, they are unwilling to give anything back.
Bullshit. Unions don't give themselves massive pay increases while the company is failing, you're thinking of corporate management. Management who talk the union into accepting pay and benefit cuts while secretly securing golden parachutes for themselves in the event of bankruptcy.
That's some weak sauce, AC. Evidence against OJ was presented openly in a court of law. Whereas ZERO evidence has been presented ANYWHERE that Russia did jack or shit last year.
Right, the members of the joint intelligence committee and the various members of congress who have seen the evidence are lying about it existing
You mean the people that spy on Congress while perjuring themselves before Congress? The same people that lied to you about Iraq, Libya and Syria?
I never worked a union job but my father in law was senior employee for over a decade at a paper mill.
Well that's fewer degrees of Kevin Bacon than the usual my-exgirlfriends-brother's-roomates-godfather didn't like unions because of XYZ annecdote from 1973.
Bizarre non-sequitur is bizarre. You DO know that Corporate Democrats frequently run to the right of Republicans, yes? Who gutted welfare - Reagan or Clinton? Who repealed habeas corpus - Bush or Obama?
Who's been a huge donor to those Corporate Democrats? Harvey Weinstein.
And Whitewater was a different story from Vince Foster - but they were both parts of the same deranged partisan witch hunt. Now Democrats have decided it's their turn to engage in hysterical bullshit to avoid talking about just how much and how hard their party sucks.
What is your problem with seeing them reported independently, as they come to light?
Read up on witch hunts and the complete lack of evidence for any of the Russiagate theories and you'll have the answer to your question.
You gotta love the right, misrepresent evidence from the CIA to justify a war, then point your previous deception as reason to doubt evidence of your latest misdeeds.
You're 0 for 3. Care to back up and try again, but reading this time?
Yeah... the story isn't actually changing, there's just more chapters.
Of course the story is changing - otherwise they'd be talking about how Boris Yanchecov, Russian FSB agent personally gave a thumb drive to Jared Kushner with DNC emails to leak to Fox News and now asking Trump to resign. Not talking about $5000 in Google ads purchased out of Google's $70 billion in annual ad revenue.
But that's not happening, because the entire hysteria was deranged partisan bullshit from the beginning.
It's like how when a new woman comes out and accuses Harvey Weinstien
No. It's not like that. Not even remotely close. So let's fix your analogy.....Russiagate would be like Harvey Weinstein if and only if:
1) Weinstein was accused of sexually assaulting women - and those claims turned out to be completely false 2) Then, Weinstein was accused of sexually harassing women - and those claims turned out to be completely false 3) Then, Weinstein was accused of making a pass at a woman who was not his wife - and those claims turned out to be completely false 4) Then, Weinstein was accused of making sexist comments about women - and those claims were completely false 5) Then, Weinstein was accused of sexism because he casts attractive women in Weinstein movies and had a copy of Cosmo sitting on a table in his office - meaning the witch hunters have passed Peak Bullshit in trying to attack him
But Weinstein is of course a womanizing creep, and your attempted analogy of course is complete bullshit.
Ones that don't want to be sued out of existence. Selectively firing pro-union workers is a major illegal act, something akin to stock fraud. This is why companies try to do their best to keep records on everything so they can show they're not just targeting like this
Which is why they're firing more workers than those trying to unionize. That way when Bob, union organizer, tries to make a case to the NLRB, Tesla says it was because he clocked in 45 seconds late on the second Tuesday in September. Or Bob forgot to turn the lights on his way out, or he held the door open for someone carrying something instead of making them use their key card for access to the plant.
Non-union companies have lots of ways to fire people. And this way Musk gets to try and deny what are really laid-off workers their unemployment benefits.
Union workers are hardly the people who decide mutual best interest.
Oh, but they are. To repeat myself:
Union workers are entirely dependent on the welfare of the company for their jobs and retirement
A corporate executive DGAF if the company is going to under in five years if he can make bank in the meantime and move onto the next executive position before chapter 11 hits, or arrange a golden parachute for himself.
As opposed to union workers, who depend on the company being profitable now and well into the future.
Hell when the last plant I worked at shut and made everyone redundant the union rep opened a $10k bar tab at the local pub and everyone drank for free. He was on a fucking windfall so big that made me wonder if he had been trying to drive the company into ground before his retirement.
Anecdote + confirmation bias, how original in an anti-union story. But lets go ahead and say this guy was a soak who was free with other people's money - you could vote him out. Good luck doing that as a worker to a vice president of the company.
No, I'm faulting them because they didn't TRY. The focus wasn't on funding the pension fund, but garnering more retirement benefits that the company obviously couldn't' afford. Don't try and tell me otherwise, I went to the union meetings with my parents, I remember what the Union bosses were telling the crowds and I remember my Dad complaining about this very thing way back then.
Does nothing to change the fact that you wanted the union to have more control in company operations yet now you hate unions. While simultaneously holding the company completely blameless - is this about the time time you picked up a copy of Atlas Wanked when you were 13?
And what part of "unions accept massive cutbacks while executives take golden parachutes" did I stutter on? When was the last time you saw top company executives agree to work for $10 an hour to get the company back on track?
How's this relevant to what the Unions did or didn't do?
Only the fantasy you keep repeating, that unions have driven companies into the ground with their extravagant wage demands, while ignoring the cutbacks they have accepted.
I've not seen a company go bankrupt because they paid a CEO too much money. Have you? Citation please?
"Because of" - attempted shifting of goalposts noted, and your continued attempts to hand waive away corporate executives securing golden parachutes for themselves while steering their companies straight into the iceberg of Chapter 11.
Wow, that's a leap! So now I'm embarrassed by rich people? Seriously?
So you didn't read the quote. Seriously.
Having an equal chance, equal opportunity does NOT produce equal outcomes.
That's exactly what it means, statistically, or you do not have equal opportunity. Since you skipped it the first time, I'll just copy and paste:
Otherwise your Starbucks barista would have an equal chance of having a last name of Rockefellar as your Fortune 500 CEO has a chance of growing up in a double-wide. But of course that's not the case.
Have you ever watched the 100 yard dash? In your world, you think equal opportunity means everybody should get a participation trophy, just blah blah blather blather blah blah.
What part of the word statistically are you having a hard time with? Your entire tangent on 100 yard dashes is a non sequitur. We're not randomly grabbing the case of Bob who grew up in a double wide and comparing him to Steve who grew up with the last name of Rockefeller. It's comparing all Bob's to all Steve's - and the #1 factor in how far you go in life remains how much money your daddy had.
He would be quick to point out that a few years into his job *is* exactly when he actually made the most money
snip
At one point they started doing reviews every year so once it's known that some mechanics can do a job that pays 1 hour in 40 minutes, the books were adjusted so that same job the following year would now only pay 40 minutes
So, before the union came in. Did your dad make sure to thank his corporate overlords for this adjustment? He did know it was the company charging the motorist three hours of labor for 40 minutes of your dad's time, yes?
It's *a lot* more difficult to get rid of a bad employee once you're unionized than if you're not.
Which again, is predicated on the idea that the rest of the workers are happy to step in and do the "bad" employees work for him, the second they join a union. Which, again, is complete nonsense on its face, as his fellow workers would be the first ones asking that the slacker be fired.
ut the point is, what started happening in reality is that once the union was in, my dad started seeing coworkers and new hires slacking off because it was getting harder and harder just to achieve parity (hours worked vs hours paid), so a bunch of them were perfectly happy to live off of what their guaranteed minimum salary would provide.
Remember how I said union workers were invested in the company's operations? More auto maintenance completed == more earnings for the mechanics. Unless the company wasn't sharing the rewards of higher productivity with it's mechanics, in which case why are you complaining about the union instead of the company - which according to your own story started paying your dad for 40 minutes of work instead of an hour?
Do you have any actual evidence though? I mean, in the case of Iraq there was strong evidence even at the time that it was bullshit, but here there appears to be zero
I no more need to provide evidence that Russia did not hack the election than you need to provide evidence that you did not build a time machine to go back and assassinate Abraham Lincoln.
1) You cannot prove a negative 2) It's the job of the person making the claim to provide the evidence
And so far Russiagates have as much evidence as the people who think jet trails are being used to seed the atmosphere with mind-controlling gas.
Why doesn't he fire the people behind this conspiracy against him
Where you backpacking in Nepal when people were throwing around Nixon comparisons and obstruction of justices charges when Trump fired Comey? Just what do you think will be the media response if Trump fires Ken Starr, I mean Robert Muller?
Slashdot Mirror
Where was I only talking about the rich?
You don't have to be an investment banker to help your slacker son get into a good university - after he drank he way through high school - and then help him into a good job fresh out of college - after drinking his way to a BA. A job that an "up from mah bootstraps" shmoe would have to work ten years to get. A being lawyer or manager of your local Wells Fargo branch will do quite nicely.
And anyone who actually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, busting their asses to get top grades and internships that turned into careers - will recognize those bourgeois babies a mile off.
If that's actually the case then you've worked with no shortage of management who were born with a silver spoon in their asses. Yet you resent the poor more than the rich and bourgeois who were born on third base. Interesting.
Fraud is a reason.
Making fraudulent claims is fraud.
Go fuck yourself, corporatist bootlicker.
That's still competing against the infinitely larger subsidies to the fossil fuel industry - whether direct tax subsidies or indirect like letting them drill public land and not clean up the environmental damage they produce. Then there's the massive inflation of demand by spending many billions per year on highways to move and more cars around.
No, there wasn't. There was a guy who was a bigger oil man than Bush or Cheney, who bragged about how oil was being drilled faster than it could be delivered to market.
How very Calvinist of you. Work will set you free...
Based on past results from the company - they aren't speaking totally out of their asses. They've done the same for years....next Toyota Camry will probably be above average for reliability, and the next Dodge Ram will be below.
Compared to corporate oligarchies or corporate dictatorships? You think through these talking points before posting them?
Says the person engaging in hand waiving and non sequiturs.
Fixed your nonsense for you. All these anti-union canards are pulled out of Ayn Rand's zombified ass - just as Steven Spielberg and Kevin Smith, who are both members of the same union, and not compensated in the same way.
Riiiiight. Companies that exploits workers limb from literal limb are a thing of the past, like racism, sexism, and forest fires.
But even if there weren't happy to let your dumb bootlicking ass die in a fire to save a few bucks, unions are also a necessary pushback against corporate greed. Like when companies in the midst of all-time-high profits lay off thousands of workers or demand they take pay cuts so the stockholders can make even more obscene amounts of money.
What corruption is that - you know Hoffa's been dead for a couple of years now? Then there's the fact that the worst union corruption you can name is a drop in the olympic swimming pool of corporate corruption.
Not so much a truth when at the time Germany made twice as many cars while paying their workers twice as much money.
So, no. What happened to the Big Three was their bottom lines resting on high-margin, gas guzzling vehicles, and that line fell apart after Katrina pushed gas prices over $4 a gallon. Same thing that happened to them in the 80's when the oil embargo hit and Japanese manufacturers ate their lunch.
Bullshit. The long term well-being of the union and its workers is inseparable from the the long term well-being of the company. As opposed to corporate executives, who are happy to give themselves raises and golden parachutes while driving the company into the ground. Just ask Marisa Mayer and Carly Fiorina, just to name two.
Bullshit. Unions don't give themselves massive pay increases while the company is failing, you're thinking of corporate management. Management who talk the union into accepting pay and benefit cuts while secretly securing golden parachutes for themselves in the event of bankruptcy.
No. It's a tool for manipulating people. Your post (and most of those to this story) are examples of how that tool works in action.
That's some weak sauce, AC. Evidence against OJ was presented openly in a court of law. Whereas ZERO evidence has been presented ANYWHERE that Russia did jack or shit last year.
You mean the people that spy on Congress while perjuring themselves before Congress? The same people that lied to you about Iraq, Libya and Syria?
Cashiers check or PayPal. I'm waiting.
Well that's fewer degrees of Kevin Bacon than the usual my-exgirlfriends-brother's-roomates-godfather didn't like unions because of XYZ annecdote from 1973.
Bizarre non-sequitur is bizarre. You DO know that Corporate Democrats frequently run to the right of Republicans, yes? Who gutted welfare - Reagan or Clinton? Who repealed habeas corpus - Bush or Obama?
Who's been a huge donor to those Corporate Democrats? Harvey Weinstein.
You're really struggling with this "evidence" concept, aren't you? Accusations, assertions and innuendos are not evidence....Birther.
And Whitewater was a different story from Vince Foster - but they were both parts of the same deranged partisan witch hunt. Now Democrats have decided it's their turn to engage in hysterical bullshit to avoid talking about just how much and how hard their party sucks.
Read up on witch hunts and the complete lack of evidence for any of the Russiagate theories and you'll have the answer to your question.
You're 0 for 3. Care to back up and try again, but reading this time?
Of course the story is changing - otherwise they'd be talking about how Boris Yanchecov, Russian FSB agent personally gave a thumb drive to Jared Kushner with DNC emails to leak to Fox News and now asking Trump to resign. Not talking about $5000 in Google ads purchased out of Google's $70 billion in annual ad revenue.
But that's not happening, because the entire hysteria was deranged partisan bullshit from the beginning.
No. It's not like that. Not even remotely close. So let's fix your analogy.....Russiagate would be like Harvey Weinstein if and only if:
1) Weinstein was accused of sexually assaulting women - and those claims turned out to be completely false
2) Then, Weinstein was accused of sexually harassing women - and those claims turned out to be completely false
3) Then, Weinstein was accused of making a pass at a woman who was not his wife - and those claims turned out to be completely false
4) Then, Weinstein was accused of making sexist comments about women - and those claims were completely false
5) Then, Weinstein was accused of sexism because he casts attractive women in Weinstein movies and had a copy of Cosmo sitting on a table in his office - meaning the witch hunters have passed Peak Bullshit in trying to attack him
But Weinstein is of course a womanizing creep, and your attempted analogy of course is complete bullshit.
Which is why they're firing more workers than those trying to unionize. That way when Bob, union organizer, tries to make a case to the NLRB, Tesla says it was because he clocked in 45 seconds late on the second Tuesday in September. Or Bob forgot to turn the lights on his way out, or he held the door open for someone carrying something instead of making them use their key card for access to the plant.
Non-union companies have lots of ways to fire people. And this way Musk gets to try and deny what are really laid-off workers their unemployment benefits.
Keep fucking that chicken, wingnut.
Oh, but they are. To repeat myself:
A corporate executive DGAF if the company is going to under in five years if he can make bank in the meantime and move onto the next executive position before chapter 11 hits, or arrange a golden parachute for himself.
As opposed to union workers, who depend on the company being profitable now and well into the future.
Anecdote + confirmation bias, how original in an anti-union story. But lets go ahead and say this guy was a soak who was free with other people's money - you could vote him out. Good luck doing that as a worker to a vice president of the company.
Does nothing to change the fact that you wanted the union to have more control in company operations yet now you hate unions. While simultaneously holding the company completely blameless - is this about the time time you picked up a copy of Atlas Wanked when you were 13?
Only the fantasy you keep repeating, that unions have driven companies into the ground with their extravagant wage demands, while ignoring the cutbacks they have accepted.
"Because of" - attempted shifting of goalposts noted, and your continued attempts to hand waive away corporate executives securing golden parachutes for themselves while steering their companies straight into the iceberg of Chapter 11.
So you didn't read the quote. Seriously.
That's exactly what it means, statistically, or you do not have equal opportunity. Since you skipped it the first time, I'll just copy and paste:
Otherwise your Starbucks barista would have an equal chance of having a last name of Rockefellar as your Fortune 500 CEO has a chance of growing up in a double-wide. But of course that's not the case.
What part of the word statistically are you having a hard time with? Your entire tangent on 100 yard dashes is a non sequitur. We're not randomly grabbing the case of Bob who grew up in a double wide and comparing him to Steve who grew up with the last name of Rockefeller. It's comparing all Bob's to all Steve's - and the #1 factor in how far you go in life remains how much money your daddy had.
Which means we do not have equal opportunity.
snip
So, before the union came in. Did your dad make sure to thank his corporate overlords for this adjustment? He did know it was the company charging the motorist three hours of labor for 40 minutes of your dad's time, yes?
Which again, is predicated on the idea that the rest of the workers are happy to step in and do the "bad" employees work for him, the second they join a union. Which, again, is complete nonsense on its face, as his fellow workers would be the first ones asking that the slacker be fired.
Remember how I said union workers were invested in the company's operations? More auto maintenance completed == more earnings for the mechanics. Unless the company wasn't sharing the rewards of higher productivity with it's mechanics, in which case why are you complaining about the union instead of the company - which according to your own story started paying your dad for 40 minutes of work instead of an hour?
I no more need to provide evidence that Russia did not hack the election than you need to provide evidence that you did not build a time machine to go back and assassinate Abraham Lincoln.
1) You cannot prove a negative
2) It's the job of the person making the claim to provide the evidence
And so far Russiagates have as much evidence as the people who think jet trails are being used to seed the atmosphere with mind-controlling gas.
Where you backpacking in Nepal when people were throwing around Nixon comparisons and obstruction of justices charges when Trump fired Comey? Just what do you think will be the media response if Trump fires Ken Starr, I mean Robert Muller?