[cmeisenzahl]

Continuing to help America. Be sure to look for the "crooked" label.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRe...ticleid=105449


-- "A backhoe operator snoozes."


"Dozing on the Dig: Idle hands raise ire
By Casey Ross
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - Updated: 03:10 AM EST

A stunning lack of oversight is allowing Big Dig workers to sleep on the job, read newspapers in idling vehicles and drive backhoes aimlessly through city streets – all while pocketing their $49-an-hour taxpayer-funded pay, a Herald investigation found.
During a five-day surveillance, a reporter watched heavy-equipment operators nod off or simply sit idle for hours on construction sites along Atlantic Avenue. At times, workers who are supposed to be fixing prior construction blunders napped in full view of supervisors and passing commuters. "

[OldManMac]

You've obviously never had a job. Stuff like this happens even with people who wear suits and ties.

[Millennium]

Unions are like politicians: when they're good they're very good, but when they're bad they're very bad.

[Dakar]

I've always thought that construction workers were generally accepted as some of the laziest people on the job. How much do they get paid to hold signs that say "Slow" and "Stop"? Anytime i pass construction on the road inevitable 2 people are always talking, 1 is sitting in a vehicle, and another is just standing around watching another vehicle actually doing something.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by KarlG

You've obviously never had a job. Stuff like this happens even with people who wear suits and ties.

That's true too. It's always driven me nuts how I can catch flack for having an extended conversation with someone or I take a 20 min break instead of a 15 during an 8 or 9 hour day, but the smokers who go out and and have a cigarette for 5 minutes every hour or two for an entire day are a-ok.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Dakar

That's true too. It's always driven me nuts how I can catch flack for having an extended conversation with someone or I take a 20 min break instead of a 15 during an 8 or 9 hour day, but the smokers who go out and and have a cigarette for 5 minutes every hour or two for an entire day are a-ok.

Yup. Used to work with a woman whose smoking "breaks" added up to an hour and a half in an eight hour work day.

My favorite is bosses who ask you not to make personal calls and then spend 45 minutes talking to their friends/spouse/whatever.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Unions are like politicians: when they're good they're very good, but when they're bad they're very bad.

Xactly. Before unions people regularly worked 60 to 70 hour weeks with no sick days, no personal days, no holidays and the chance of being fired at any moment for any reason. Unfortunately, power corrupts.

[Dakar]

I've briefly considered, getting candy cigarettes and going outside and standing around for 10 minutes ********ting and see if they'd say anything to me.


I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

[IonCable]

Unions had a time and place where they did help the working man and create a better, safer workplace. Now unions just seem to be in the business of maintaining the union and the union administrators. They don't seem to do much for the members.

Here is Michigan one of the Teachers Unions wouldn't sign a contract because the school system wanted to be able to shop around for health care providers to reduce costs. Why did the Union want this? Because the Union OWNES in own Health Insurance Company that it wants the school system to use.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Xactly. Before unions people regularly worked 60 to 70 hour weeks with no sick days, no personal days, no holidays and the chance of being fired at any moment for any reason. Unfortunately, power corrupts.

Xactly. Before slavery got illegal, slaves regularly worked 60 to 100 hour weeks with no sick days, no personal days, no holidays and the chance of being whipped and beaten up at any moment for any reason. Unfortunately, freedom corrupts.

Taliesin

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Xactly. Before slavery got illegal, slaves regularly worked 60 to 100 hour weeks with no sick days, no personal days, no holidays and the chance of being whipped and beaten up at any moment for any reason. Unfortunately, freedom corrupts.

I don't understand the comparison. Are you saying that unions are objectively good?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Xactly. Before slavery got illegal, slaves regularly worked 60 to 100 hour weeks with no sick days, no personal days, no holidays and the chance of being whipped and beaten up at any moment for any reason. Unfortunately, freedom corrupts.

Taliesin

Huh?

[OSX Abuser]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

Continuing to help America. Be sure to look for the "crooked" label.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRe...ticleid=105449


-- "A backhoe operator snoozes."


"Dozing on the Dig: Idle hands raise ire
By Casey Ross
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - Updated: 03:10 AM EST

A stunning lack of oversight is allowing Big Dig workers to sleep on the job, read newspapers in idling vehicles and drive backhoes aimlessly through city streets – all while pocketing their $49-an-hour taxpayer-funded pay, a Herald investigation found.
During a five-day surveillance, a reporter watched heavy-equipment operators nod off or simply sit idle for hours on construction sites along Atlantic Avenue. At times, workers who are supposed to be fixing prior construction blunders napped in full view of supervisors and passing commuters. "

Sounds like a total failure of management and planning. Where are the supervisors?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I don't understand the comparison. Are you saying that unions are objectively good?

If unions mean the self-organisation of workers to achieve a more human work-reality, then yes.

Everyone who has capital is organized with other peoples that have capital, why shouldn't those without capital organize with others without capital?

Taliesin

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

If unions mean the self-organisation of workers to achieve a more human work-reality, then yes.

Everyone who has capital is organized with other peoples that have capital, why shouldn't those without capital organize with others without capital?

Taliesin

I don't believe what Don said was indictment of unions per se, but of their abuse of their now well amassed power.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

If unions mean the self-organisation of workers to achieve a more human work-reality, then yes.

Everyone who has capital is organized with other peoples that have capital, why shouldn't those without capital organize with others without capital?

Taliesin

Unions, in theory, are a great thing. Unions, in practice, are often a great thing. However, ignoring the inevitable corruption which colors every human endeavor is willful blindness: the upper management of the Teamsters is one of the most corrupt around.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I don't believe what Don said was indictment of unions per se, but of their abuse of their now well amassed power.

Exactly. And it's not a blanket indictment of unions either. Some are corrupt, some aren't.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

If unions mean the self-organisation of workers to achieve a more human work-reality, then yes.

You speak of the concept of unions, and on this we agree, but surely you don't believe that actual unions as implemented by people are incorruptible?

For that matter, what is 'more human'? Who decides this? Where does the authority to make that decision come from? If it comes from nowhere, then what gives anyone the right to claim that something is 'more' or 'less' human than anything else? I am, at least in part, playing Devil's Advocate here, because I want to see where you come from on this.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Unions, in theory, are a great thing. Unions, in practice, are often a great thing. However, ignoring the inevitable corruption which colors every human endeavor is willful blindness: the upper management of the Teamsters is one of the most corrupt around.

Corporations, in theory, are a great thing. Corporations, in practice, are often a great thing. However, ignoring the inevitable corruption which colors every human endeavor is willful blindness; the upper management of most large corporations are some of the greediest, most corrupt, and indifferent to their workers, around.

Fixed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Ahh yes, I hate unions.

Err… well, except for my own, of course. Good ol’ Local 839.

Most people at most jobs do as much of that stuff as they can get away with. Stunning lack of oversight, napping on the job, goofing off, sitting idle or perhaps surfing the web/playing games for extended periods. Most workers just do so behind closed office doors, rather than directly in front of supervisors, passing commuters, or camera-armed reporters doing five-day surveillance missions.

But yeah. Unions suck. Except mine. Well, except when they piss my dues down the toilet.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Corporations, in theory, are a great thing. Corporations, in practice, are often a great thing. However, ignoring the inevitable corruption which colors every human endeavor is willful blindness; the upper management of most large corporations are some of the greediest, most corrupt, and indifferent to their workers, around.

Fixed.

Not sure what point you're making. Are you denying there are corrupt unions?

[Dakar]

What is it with this thread.

Admitting some unions are corrupt doesn't mean denying corporations do the same thing. In fact, that would be completely illogical -- they both become corrupt for the same reason: too much money, power, and human greed.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Not sure what point you're making. Are you denying there are corrupt unions?

Not at all. The point I am making is that American executives are screwing the American worker far better than the unions, with the continually growing excesses of CEO pay and benefits. The balance has tilted against the working class.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Not at all. The point I am making is that American executives are screwing the American worker far better than the unions, with the continually growing excesses of CEO pay and benefits. The balance has tilted against the working class.

In a capitalist system the balance is always tilted against the working classes – hence unions.

However, the tragedy is that the unions, or, more accurately the leaders of those unions, have done the damage to themselves by accruing power, money and privilege exactly as those overpaid CEOs have done. I have friends who are shop stewards, and they, like 99% of union workforces, are just interested in doing their jobs and getting fair pay and benefits. However, some of the union bosses have parlayed their positions into lucrative fiefdoms, and care more for preserving their own power than for representing workers. What the unions really need to do is kick these guys to the curb and go back to their primary purpose, which is worker-run collective bargaining and management for the workers.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Not at all. The point I am making is that American executives are screwing the American worker far better than the unions, with the continually growing excesses of CEO pay and benefits. The balance has tilted against the working class.

I don't think anyone is saying that the unions are screwing the worker. Rather, they're screwing the employers and the clients, who ought to have the right to expect a reasonable amount of productivity (i.e. not sleeping on the job). This isn't what unions were created for, and it's a sign that in those areas, the balance of power has become too uneven in favor of one side over the other.

I suppose that in the end, though, this is no different than the other two points of the triangle. Management always wants to screw over the workers by insisting on minimum costs and the clients by insisting on maximum prices. Workers always want to screw over the management and the clients by insisting on minimum expectations and maximum overhead. Clients always want to screw over the management and employees by insisting on minimum prices and maximum quality. It's a triangle where each side always opposes the other two.

Of these, only unions have the power of collective bargaining, only management has the power of capital, and only clients have the power of... what? The current system seems to deal well with two points of the triangle, but not the third. Nationalizing the client side of things is unsustainable, as both of the other sides have become quite adept at screweing the taxpayers (either that or they become virtual slaves, paid far less than they're worth). What, then, should happen with this third side?

[Monique]

You seemed to say that because you are an union worker you necessary sleep on the job; maybe the guy was on his lunch break or something. You know this guy personally.

Unions are essential; do you really think the bosses would give sick days, vacation, pay raise, benifits, and working reasonable hours if the unions were not forcing them to.

Before the unions 8 years old were working in factories. And nothing would be changed if the unions did not change it.

Bosses are not very human and they do not care about their employees what they want is productivity and profits, this is it.

I am right now on a lock out and the CEO of my company said that he would break the union meaning the workers or the company.

That what some of you admire so much. Taking advantage of people.

[BRussell]

To summarize: a bunch of people posting to an internet forum in the middle of the afternoon are bitching about people not working hard enough.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Of these, only unions have the power of collective bargaining, only management has the power of capital, and only clients have the power of... what? The current system seems to deal well with two points of the triangle, but not the third. Nationalizing the client side of things is unsustainable, as both of the other sides have become quite adept at screweing the taxpayers (either that or they become virtual slaves, paid far less than they're worth). What, then, should happen with this third side?

Of those three, it is the client who has the most power for a very simple reason: the client is where the money comes from. Businesses have folded because a large client took work elsewhere, and the mere threat of such a move can get huge concessions out of management.

However, the client isn't really involved in the management/union struggle, as except for specific circumstances (such as a client not wanting to use a clothing manufacturer who uses sweatshop labor, for example) the client doesn't care about the management/union struggle.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by BRussell

To summarize: a bunch of people posting to an internet forum in the middle of the afternoon are bitching about people not working hard enough.

While I appreciate the humor, I hope you don't seriously think there's a parallel between posting on the internet occasionally between jobs, and sleeping in a backhoe for extended periods in full view of wage-paying traffic.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

You seemed to say that because you are an union worker you necessary sleep on the job; maybe the guy was on his lunch break or something. You know this guy personally.

My god you actually said something that makes sense.
[edit:I admit that I posted this before I read the article, you don't make any sense after all… ]

Unions are essential; do you really think the bosses would give sick days, vacation, pay raise, benifits, and working reasonable hours if the unions were not forcing them to.

Yes. And they DO. Even gas station attendants get these things in a field of work where there's no union or threat of a union to worry about.

Before the unions 8 years old were working in factories. And nothing would be changed if the unions did not change it.

Unions were formed for a very good reason yes, and they did change things a great deal. But with the bazillions of laws and regulations overseen by OSHA and the states have made the NEED for protection by the unions obsolete.

Bosses are not very human

This is just silly.

and they do not care about their employees what they want is productivity and profits, this is it.

A company is formed for the purpose of making money. That's why they exist. Most do care, but they aren't going to sacrifice all of their profits to give their employees everything they want. Plus you need to realize that the government takes half of their revenues in taxes and that they need to keep costs low with competition from Asia, if they can't compete they won't have a company at all.

I am right now on a lock out and the CEO of my company said that he would break the union meaning the workers or the company.

That what some of you admire so much. Taking advantage of people.

Unions are an idea whose time has passed. The were necessary in the early days of the industrial era in this country but things have evolved far beyond those days. The pressures of public image and competition for competent workers has created and environment where even many of the menial, starting positions are given better treatment and benefits (and wages to a certain degree) than a decent job in most other countries.

The modern union does care about employees. They care about them because they pay union dues. Everyone who likes to whine about corporations need to realize that unions make money too. The UAW makes about 900 million a year last I checked. (which was last year) You would think that with that kind of revenue stream that they could at least take care of striking members, but they get hardly anything. Which is sad because many times the union leadership pushes for a strike that the rank and file don't want at all.

[andi*pandi]

I would not use the big dig as an example of anything the way it should be.

[vmarks]

Dr. Williams says it far better than I would:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3357

Summary: The Davis-Bacon Act is a federal law that mandates that a prevailing wage be paid on all federally financed or assisted construction projects. The secretary of labor illegally sets the "prevailing wage" at the union wage or higher, regardless of what the average wage is in the affected locality. The effect of the Davis-Bacon Act is that of discriminating against contractor employment of non-union and lower skilled workers.

[CapMag.com]There's a little known law called the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. It remains on the books today. Before saying what the law is and its effects, let me run by you some of the language used, in the early 1930s, to push the law through Congress.
Rep. John Cochran of Missouri said he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South."

Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood complained: "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."

Rep. William Upshaw complained of the "superabundance or large aggregation of negro labor," which is a real problem "you are confronted with in any community."

New York's Sen. Robert Bacon replied, "I just mentioned the fact because that was the fact in this particular case, but the same would be true if you should bring in a lot of Mexican laborers or if you brought in any non-union laborers from any other state."

Other congressmen expressed their support for the Davis-Bacon Act in ways that were more temperate in expressing their racially discriminatory agenda. They railed against "transient labor", "cheap labor" and "cheap imported labor." AFL president William Green made it clear what his union's interests were, "(C)olored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates."

You might ask, "What is this Davis-Bacon Act?" The Davis-Bacon Act is a federal law that mandates that a prevailing wage be paid on all federally financed or assisted construction projects. The secretary of labor illegally sets the "prevailing wage" at the union wage or higher, regardless of what the average wage is in the affected locality. The effect of the Davis-Bacon Act is that of discriminating against contractor employment of non-union and lower skilled workers.

Thus, it has a racially discriminatory effect, since most blacks are in the non-union sector of the construction industry. Even black contractors wanting to hire a lower skilled black worker can't do so.

Why? If the Davis-Bacon Act requires that any worker handling a hammer and a nail, for example, be paid $25 an hour, no contractor in his right mind is going to hire a worker with $10 an hour skills and pay him $25. Any minimum wage law tends to discriminate against the employment of low-skilled works; the Davis-Bacon Act is simply a super-minimum wage.

During South Africa's apartheid era, it had laws similar to the Davis-Bacon in its quest to protect white workers from competition with lower-skilled, lower-paid black workers.

One naturally asks how such a law can remain on the books today. Davis-Bacon survives because of the powerful interest-group support it receives, namely labor unions who lobby congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans. What's sad is the support the Davis-Bacon Act receives from black congressmen. Black congressmen have made a deal with the devil because unions represent their strongest supporters in terms of campaign contributions and their legislative agenda.

Of course, today's Davis-Bacon Act supporters don't have the same intentions and don't use the racist language of their predecessors. That shouldn't make any difference to us. Our concern should be the law's effects, not its intentions.

After all, if someone is pushed off a building it's not the intentions of the pusher that determines how he falls, it's the law of gravity. It's the same with economic laws. Intentions behind price-fixing are not necessarily the same as its effects.



About the Author: Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Of those three, it is the client who has the most power for a very simple reason: the client is where the money comes from. Businesses have folded because a large client took work elsewhere, and the mere threat of such a move can get huge concessions out of management.

That's true in theory, but there are many ways to break that theory. For example, in a monopoly, there is no "elsewhere" for the client to take his money, and therefore his power vanishes. In a system where the client cannot get information about business practices with which he may disagree (due to ethics or inefficiency or any number of other reasons), a client is basically decieved into doing business with a company which, were the whole truth known, he might not wish to deal with. In government systems, where everyone could be considered the client, choice is taken out of the client's hands entirely, and thus there is no power.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar

That's true too. It's always driven me nuts how I can catch flack for having an extended conversation with someone or I take a 20 min break instead of a 15 during an 8 or 9 hour day, but the smokers who go out and and have a cigarette for 5 minutes every hour or two for an entire day are a-ok.

I F*CKING HATE THAT!!!!

I got yelled at by my former boss because I took a "smoke break" with my friend, who's a smoker. Except I didn't smoke, I grabbed a soda.

Some punk snitched on me and told my boss that I don't smoke, so I don't need a break. He came out and called me into his office. Asked me if I smoked, I told him no. Gave me a big lecture about how this is the first and last time he's going to have to tell me to go back to work.

If I had known I was gonna quit a few weeks later, I would've just told him off right there. That's some serious bullsh*t. You shouldn't get extra breaks to go kill yourself.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

You speak of the concept of unions, and on this we agree, but surely you don't believe that actual unions as implemented by people are incorruptible?

For that matter, what is 'more human'? Who decides this? Where does the authority to make that decision come from? If it comes from nowhere, then what gives anyone the right to claim that something is 'more' or 'less' human than anything else? I am, at least in part, playing Devil's Advocate here, because I want to see where you come from on this.

Off course unions can be corrupt, but so are most organizations if they are not transparent and checked.

Who decides what is more human you ask? That's a good question, and I think a decision doesn't need to be made: If both organizations meet and negiotate they will most likely find a compromise, if you want: a balance, between the needs and rights of both sides.

Taliesin

[Y3a]

Unions get higher wages for their members, and the companies who are forced to use them have to pass the cost to YOU!

Union members do not take risks to start their own companies, so the rewards for participation is less. Those who DO take risks, and are not union slugs get the higher wages for those risks. If YOU started a small company, and then got big by your hard work and cleverness and got so big as to require a big workforce, and they unionized and suddenly your labor costs almost doubled, would YOU like unions? They were great early last century, but they are just a waste of money, and no longer require standards of the members.

[Monique]

I knew someone from France at one point and he said the reason why employees in general get a much better deal in France and are more productive is not because the bosses are generous or nice it is because the unions are stronger.

It is essential for the Teamsters to exist in a sense it would be so easy for owner to exploit the truck drivers like at one point drivers used to burn their fingers with cigarettes to stay awake, the reason is that they had to drive 18 - 20 hours in a row to deliver the merchandise. You really think those practices would be in the past if the unions did not exist.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Unions get higher wages for their members, and the companies who are forced to use them have to pass the cost to YOU!

Union members do not take risks to start their own companies, so the rewards for participation is less. Those who DO take risks, and are not union slugs get the higher wages for those risks. If YOU started a small company, and then got big by your hard work and cleverness and got so big as to require a big workforce, and they unionized and suddenly your labor costs almost doubled, would YOU like unions? They were great early last century, but they are just a waste of money, and no longer require standards of the members.

That's obviously true, but when CEOs get 400 times the wages of their average workers, something's gone amuk in the opposite direction. When CEOs get bonuses for laying off the very workers who contributed to the growth of the company, something's wrong. When CEOs who have failed to turn a company around, get millions as a parting gift, something's seriously irrational.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by KarlG

That's obviously true, but when CEOs get 400 times the wages of their average workers, something's gone amuk in the opposite direction.

Has it? If a company considers a CEO to be that valuable, ought it not be allowed to pay that CEO what it believes to be an appropriate value for that CEO's labor? Or are you under the impression that CEOs do no work at all?

When CEOs get bonuses for laying off the very workers who contributed to the growth of the company, something's wrong. When CEOs who have failed to turn a company around, get millions as a parting gift, something's seriously irrational.

Here, you have valid points: it does seem unreasonable that CEOs should get rewarded for work which obviously has a strong negative effect. This should be examined further.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Has it? If a company considers a CEO to be that valuable, ought it not be allowed to pay that CEO what it believes to be an appropriate value for that CEO's labor? Or are you under the impression that CEOs do no work at all?

Here, you have valid points: it does seem unreasonable that CEOs should get rewarded for work which obviously has a strong negative effect. This should be examined further.

The "company" doesn't consider a CEOs value to the organization; a like-minded board of directors, who's interests are to protect their own, considers the CEOs pay. It's quite obvious that the "company" doesn't consider the people who help make the board rich as very necessary components.

The U. S. has, by far, the highest ratio of CEO/worker pay in the world, which makes sense, because it goes along with our gluttonous, take anything we want, attitude, towards the rest of the world.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The "company" doesn't consider a CEOs value to the organization; a like-minded board of directors, who's interests are to protect their own, considers the CEOs pay.

Not unlike a small union of their own, perhaps?

It's quite obvious that the "company" doesn't consider the people who help make the board rich as very necessary components.

Do they, or don't they? Putting the blanket statements aside for a moment, what makes you believe this is some kind of default case?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Not unlike a small union of their own, perhaps?

Isn' that the generic divide? Blue collar versus white collar, labor versus management?

Management has always been organized in their own interests.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Isn' that the generic divide? Blue collar versus white collar, labor versus management?

That's the way it's traditionally been framed by the workers, yes. Of course, implicit in those particular terms is a denial that management performs any labor, or at least not any of significant importance.

Management has always been organized in their own interests.

As have unions, as long as they have been around. Is there a problem with this?

I am by no means anti-union. I have said already that when unions are good they're very good, and note the present tense: I do not believe that unions are an obsolete concept. However, I am anti-corruption, and when a union gets away with things such as what we see in the original post I fail to see how it could be describes as anything other than corruption.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Millennium

That's the way it's traditionally been framed by the workers, yes. Of course, implicit in those particular terms is a denial that management performs any labor, or at least not any of significant importance.

Correct. Both minimize the others importance.

Originally Posted by Millennium

As have unions, as long as they have been around.

I disagree with that. Unions were formed because of that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dakar

While I appreciate the humor, I hope you don't seriously think there's a parallel between posting on the internet occasionally between jobs, and sleeping in a backhoe for extended periods in full view of wage-paying traffic.

The only differences I see are that one is blue collar and the other is white collar, and one is more publicly visible while the other is more hidden.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I disagree with that. Unions were formed because of that.

You disagree with unions acting solely in the interests of their members? I thought that was the whole point of collective bargaining.

[Spliffdaddy]

Folks, union membership has steadily declined to the point where unions have become powerless and ineffective. Why? Because they stopped representing workers and started funding the DNC. Fully 98% of union donations to political campaigns go to Democrats. Fully 80% of your union dues will be given to political campaigns. The AFL-CIO gets its money from union membership dues - and pretty much *all* of its income will be handed to politicians and political action committees.

I was a union member for almost 15 years. It wasn't until I decided to get out of the union that I discovered it was a cult. You cannot easily 'quit' a union. I promise. You'd have better luck getting out of the Klan, or leaving the Jim Jones compound. What sort of crooked organization would lock you into participation? Just for kicks, I dare you to ask how to get out of your union. You'll see what I mean.

Death to unions. And so far it's happening. Thank God.

If the job sucks, then quit. Find a better one. If you were worth a damn, your previous employer will be sorry.

Or are you stuck in a bad job because you owe money?

Why do you think I always insist that people shouldn't borrow money?

[Y3a]

A manager can be fired for doing a lousy job, but union workers waste resources by arbitration and games. Generic anti-management and anti-worker(union or not) doesn't change the fact that if you own the company, or hold a large share of it(and your own actions cause its value to go up or down) then you should get the bucks you want. The whole reason to be in business for yourself is to make as much money as you can, and be your own boss. Those who want to work for someone else and not take a risk of losing everything don't have to, and don't get the big bucks.

Firing a portion of a work force may actually be good for the bottom line of a company such as when railroads got rid of the caboose and the breakman who rode in it, or when a company started using robots to assemble cars. it's a fact of business.

Some industries really don't need unions. The Giant Food stores recently nuckled under to union demands so now a union bagger gets 32 buck an hour for overtime, a job that used to be filled by high school kids. Giant passes that increase on to the customers. At Shoppers Food Warehouse, Starbucks bag of French Roast coffee was $6.25, at Giant its $8.49 a bag. Does any union worker increase the value of the product? NO. They get richer, and I don't shop there anymore.

[Monique]

Right, a CEO does. I can tell you that I earn the company I work for over $1,000. a day and they pay me $160. So I guessed they make more money than I do. By the way the deduction every 2 weeks by the union is $10. wow I guessed the union makes more money that the CEO of my company that earns $6.5 million a year.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Monique

I can tell you that I earn the company I work for over $1,000. a day and they pay me $160.

Over $1000 a day, huh? Where does this estimate come from?