Ridgid Clearance Prices at the Borg

Page 3 of 7  
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:01:08 GMT, Rick Chamberlain

This is incredibly naive. If every single union disappeared tomorrow, do you think one single worker would earn MORE money? That's a total crock. By the end of a year, I'd bet that almost all of them would have either a pay cut, loss of benefits, or both. Would this country ever have pensions or healthcare benefits at all without organized labor? Or even an 8 hour workday, paid holidays, sickdays, vacations, or anything? Not if each worker had always been forced to negotiate individually, that's for sure.

Do you really believe most workers are lazy? The vast majority bust their humps to make a living, and the poorer they are, the harder they work.
tt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really. Perhaps you should study companies who don't have unions to deal with. I think you are incredibly naive to think that almost all business would be so callous as to take a step backwards in their employee relations.

Please don't read what you want to read. Read what I wrote. I said that any worker who didn't carry their weight would make less. I don't know how you can make the stretch that I think the majority of the work force is lazy.
Rick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the construction industry, this has been the law on all contracts for government work since the 1930s, and it has been the case on many projects where it is not mandated. It is also a law that businesses have been lobbying to have repealed for almost as long. Can you honestly say that if those contractors were allowed to pay lower wages, we would actually benefit from the savings?
Thanks Nova
tt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

together and hire professional negotiators to change the power balance in the negotiation such that they can leverage more out of the bargain.
From this viewpoint, the one posters' example of janitors making 3x the salaries of the engineer aren't so stupid after all. I don't care what their individual negotiation skills may be, no one could negotiate an *unreasonably* high salary to collect trash; but as a group that becomes another matter; hand it to the janitors for being so smart. Sounds like the brilliant, benevolent, do-no-wrong management are the ones lacking negotiation skills in this example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick Chamberlain wrote:

Think about the dynamics of the situation. What you are saying makes no sense from a practical or theoretical standpoint.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Amen!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:06:06 GMT, Rick Chamberlain

Unions are definitely still needed. The times when our country was the most prosperous, from top to bottom, was when unions were strongest. Don't get me wrong, I think they are dinosaurs in many ways, partly because their effectiveness has been depleted by the courts and government regulations.
Don't fool yourself. Your doctors and dentists are in a union. It may not be called such, but what else do you call organizations that present common demands and grievances from their members, negotiate with corporations (insurance) in order to set their wages, represent them when they are accused of wrongdoing, and lobby government for beneficial legislation? Aren't those the major functions of a union?
Granted, Henry Ford paid his workers well without pressure from a union -- at least at first. So are workers supposed to sit back and count on the good graces of their employers to pay them a decent wage? Don't hold your breath.
Let's get rid of the unions. But let's also get rid of the other government regulations and court injunctions. Let's let disgruntled workers and employers have at it.
tt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Come on, TT. You place blame for the union's effectiveness at everyone's feet but their own. Are you telling me the union bosses truly care about the rank and file? Example for you - here in Milwaukee, the county unions rejected an offer by the County Exec to have a 1 week layoff for all employees to help offset the current budget deficit. This was offered so that most employees would not face permanent layoffs. The offer wasn't even broght to a vote - the bosses shut it down.
Is that in the best interest of the brethren?

Similarities, yes. Difference is that doctors can change "unions" anytime they want without suffering consequences.
As for lobbying governments, I thought the union was supposed to negotiate with the company. I find it quite disturbing that unions are able to make political contributions without consulting the rank and file. You're just supposed to shut up and watch your hard earned dollars (union dues) go to serve the interests of the union bosses.

You think that every employer is out to screw the employee? There no doubt are companies like that, but I would think that the majority of them would become a fart in the wind in short order.

Wouldn't that be lovely? One can dream, can't one?
Rick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TT, there is no such thing in a free economy as "economic rights". They only exist in a communistic environment. In a free economy, hard work and initiative are rewarded and laziness is not. Isn't that the way it should be?
As far as 1/4 of the country below the poverty line - how many of them are students, part time workers, etc? Where is this poverty line you speak of? Example - a friend of mine has relatives who live in spartan conditions in northern Wisconsin. They choose to live this simple life, and the family makes about $15,000 a year. According to statistics, they are poor. But don't tell them that.

The AMA doesn't negotiate anything when it comes to salaries. The individual doctors or practices do that with the insurance companies and hospitals they work at. The doctors can change insurance providers at a drop of a hat. You can't do that as an electrician or plumber.

Sure, if you really think that most unions are democracies. But they aren't. If the unions really cared about what the rank and file feels, I'd be willing to bet that at least 40% of the contributions would be going to the other party. But, that'll never happen in my lifetime.

Hehe. I'll bring the beer for afterward.
Rick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick Chamberlain responds:

Maybe so. But there is no such thing as a free economy, anywhere, on any major scale.
Charlie Self
"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix." Dan Quayle
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Aug 2003 18:19:23 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.combleah (Charlie Self) wrote:

All of the attempts at slowing salary growth and create some kind of economic parity between teams, which most people agree with, is blatant socialism. If teams can't afford to compete, they should go under, right? It's funny how most conservatives are for regulating their favorite sports team, but not their own businesses.
There is no such thing as a free economy. Otherwise, I could do well by selling crack on the streetcorner.
tt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:17:38 GMT, Test Tickle

Baseball and other professional sports is an example of unions gone wild though. If the unions don't like something, everyone goes on strike and that's the end of the season.
Sports players are paid ludicrous salaries anyhow. Nobody deserves $20 million to hit a ball and run in a circle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:57:49 GMT, Brian Henderson

I used to agree with this until I saw what the typical team grosses. The players SHOULD get a large cut of the money, as they are "The Show" that fills the seats.
The flip side is that the team owners keep more money.
Since the law of supply and demand isn't exactly driving ticket, souvenirs, and stadium snack prices down, why should the owners get to keep it all?
They deserve it, because people freely pay to see them play. If we didn't pay, they wouldn't draw the salaries that they do. No one _has_ to go to the ball game.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, but those pooor, pooor owners need to have the cities build them stadiums - or they take their toys and leave.
Renata
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:38:57 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:12:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@myrealbox.com (Renata) wrote:

More socialism. Damn commies!
tt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uh, Barry, the need to pay those salaries is _exactly_ what's driving those ticket, souvenir and snack prices up. The broadcast pool is getting a bit shallow lately.
Every time someone says that the pros are "the best," and "we want to watch the best," I ask myself what they mean. If there is only one "best" running back or tight end or linebacker, why do we bother with the others?
Not to mention we watch HS and College games, too. It's competition that counts.
Finally, should you care to stop and think, the owners must be able to get more for their invested dollar in baseball than in sugar-cookie production, or they will invest in bakeries. When that paper factory of a stock market was galloping like a bull, it must have been tough to get someone to risk a buck on baseball. Other than politicians, of course, addicted to OPM....
in message wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:38:57 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .

Maybe that just demonstrates that people are being ripped off in professional sports?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Unless your mayor wants the team (like DC) and is willing to spend your tax dollars, thank you very much...
Renata
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:33:44 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here in Seatlle we voted down the new stadium once. The city government decided that we had voted wrong so they held another election.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net says...

Hear, hear. Nothing more irritating than having to pay taxes to build sports facilities. Well, not much anyway.
Cheers, Abe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.