Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is the world’s largest developer of voluntary International Standards."
I think it's hillarious that this is all voluntary. AS IF. As if voluntary things made a difference in the for-profit world.
Reading the front cover, will not get what you need, just as I figured.
I can gurantee you that all those huge corporatoins ARE ISO 14000, ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and many many more ISO.
Why can I guarantee that, becuase I work directly with these large evil corporations, they must meet these standards or they are not able to work dorectly for the USG.
Sorry, but you have failed in reading and comprehension.
And it goes both ways, a lot of those evil corporations will not work with other evil corporation unless they are ISO certified.
I know you will never beleive that, and I'm sure you're not even willing to do a little research what companies are ISO compliant, that would go directly against your thinking, I bet you that old evil Wal-Mart is ISO compliant.....
Non-union workers benefit from unions? LOLS. What are you smoking.
Here's an article laying out how unions systematically keep blacks out of their workforce. Just one example of how unions purposely hurt non-union workers.
If unions helped non-union workers why do they intimidate and even commit violence against strike-busters? Those are people that just wanna work. If unions were concerned about all workers like they claim they would not deny labor to the strike-buster. period.
P&G has a very long history of taking care of their employees. Every year for cost of living increase they compare ours to local factories. They make sure that we are top tier to keep us. The top 3 also happen to be non-union shops.
Our equipment is state of the art unlike the paper mill down river from us.
Once again why would I want to work there when I have it better where I am at?
What does the union offer us? Three times they tried to get in and 3 times they failed. They admit that they can't get us more than we already have.
Yea, yea, yea....we get it. The union guys are all dummies and you non union guys are brilliant (for no other reason than the fact that you ended up working where you did...something that's beyond your control).
The other guys just keep the union around for sh*ts and giggles...not because they actually benefit from union membership.
you have serious reading comprehension problems. I say one thing, and you apparently hear another thing. jesus. I guess when you are destroyed, you just make up your own response that makes absolutely no sense.
You're suggesting that I be something that cannot be, then complain when I ridicule the suggestion.
Yea, yea, yea....we get it. The union guys are all dummies and you non union guys are brilliant (for no other reason than the fact that you ended up working where you did...something that's beyond your control).
The other guys just keep the union around for sh*ts and giggles...not because they actually benefit from union membership.
My, my ..the things you read on CD.
Please show me where I called or eluded to any dummies.
You keeps making statements how I owe it to your unions for my good job and benefits. You are entitled to your opinions, but given the fact that you have no idea where I work, the conditions of where I work or anything else about it for that matter, you make a bold and uninformed statement.
I don't try to understand the Union shop down river from us because I don't work there. I know guys who do and they like their Union. Good for them. Maybe they need a Union there. The fact is we don't need a Union where I work. But the Union has admitted that they can't get us more than we already have. They would push for more staffing and tech say in decisions around sick time etc.
If more staffing then higher case cost and possibly less investment in equipment upgrades. No thank you.
I prefer to work with a few less than to fight equipment problems.
You still havent said why I need a Union.
Once again why would I want to work there when I have it better where I am at?
What does the union offer us? Three times they tried to get in and 3 times they failed. They admit that they can't get us more than we already have.
So, P & G is probably in a state that has no right to work laws. Therefore, when workers try to organize a union, the boss councils them, "If you let a union in here, then you will have given it the right to take money out of all your paychecks, whether or not you want to be a union member, or not." Not many workers like the sound of that and vote NO on unionizing. But it's the truth. That tactic has worked wonders in keeping unions out of states with no right to work. It's a good reason no more states should make right to work a law.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 07-10-2013 at 03:11 PM..
I find it amazing how you guys always come up with the perfect scenarios.
All those Union shops, and yet your NON union shop is so much better in EVERY facet...pay AND benefits.
Then why the hell don't workers kick the labor unions out under such circumstances? If it's in a state that does NOT have right to work, then EVERYBODY in the workplace will enjoy a raise in pay when that happens.
So, P & G is in a state that has no right to work laws. Therefore, when workers try to organize a union, the boss councils them, "If you let a union in here, then you will have given it the right to take money out of all your paychecks, whether or not you want to be a union member, or not." Not many workers like the sound of that. But it's the truth. That tactic has worked wonders in keeping unions out of states with no right to work. It's a good reason no more states should make right to work a law.
Yes, informing people of reality is a terrible thing.
Unions crack me up. All about suppressing an employers right to free speech.
In case you weren't aware employers have rights too.
You have such a fundamental misunderstanding about economics, that I don't even know where to begin.
You are pretending as if higher wages means prosperity. What you fail to realize is that nominal wages has absolutely nothing to do with prosperity. Whether you get paid $5 an hour, $10 an hour or $50 an hour, only matters if it is relation to something else.
For instance, if the price of bread is $1 and you earn $5 an hour. Then for every hour of work, you can buy five loaves of bread. If bread is $2 and you earn $10, then you still earn the same number of loaves of bread per hour, regardless of the doubling of your pay.
When we talk about unions, a lot of times people discuss wages. That unions help to raise wages. But what are wages? What is money anyway?
Money is nothing within itself. What money really is, is a carrier of time. Basically, it is a way of carrying the value of my time in exchange for someone else's time. Basically, I can trade an hour of my work for an hour of someone else's work. Or I can exchange an hour of my work for 10 minutes of work from six different people(and so on and so forth).
The value of what I can purchase with my money is going to be in proportion to the value of other peoples time.
Look at it like this. Lets pretend we doubled everyone's wages tomorrow. Does that mean everyone will be twice as rich as they were before? No, the reality is that, at best, nothing would change. And at worst, it could put a lot of people out of work, because the costs of producing goods could rise so high to no longer make them competitive.
Imagine it like this. If you had five people producing different kinds of goods. They can only produce a given amount of goods. The wages themselves are only important because wages allow them to trade with each other. Whether or not they were getting paid $1 an hour, $5 an hour, or $500 an hour, doesn't really matter by itself. It only matters in relation to the other wages.
In this relationship, you might hope that all five people are paid equal wages in relation to the amount of time each of them invest in their product. But since each product is different, and requires different skills, its unlikely that each of them will get paid exactly the same amount as everyone else.
But lets say for instance, one of them makes clothing, one produces corn, one produces wheat, one produces lumber, and one has cattle.
Well, lets pretend that one year, the corn farmer produces 500 bushels of corn. The wheat farmer produces 300 bushels of wheat. The clothing manufacturer produces enough clothes for all five men to have four new sets of clothes each. The lumber producer makes the equivalent of 1,000 2x4's pieces of wood, and the cattle-man produces 2,000 pounds of beef.
How much should a bushel of corn cost? How about a bushel of wheat? How much for a pound of beef? A set of clothes? How much for the lumber? What if the following year the corn farmer produces more corn than the previous year? Or what if he produces less?
Lets pretend that instead of five people, these are five industries, employing hundreds of people each. And lets pretend that the clothing manufacturer unionizes, and now their wages are twice as high as they were before, but now the cost of clothing doubles from where it was before. Are the union workers better off than they were before? Yes. Are the non-union workers better off than they were before? No, they are worse off.
The reason is that, by the clothing manufacturers unionizing and raising their wages up. They now have more buying power. But there aren't more goods to actually buy. So while the union workers can now buy a larger share of all the goods that are produced by everyone in society. The people who aren't unionized end up getting a smaller share of the goods that are produced.
The only way unions can both increase their own wages without taking away the buying power of others. Is if their increased wages came as a result of increased productivity. Basically, if they doubled their wages and productivity at the same time, they wouldn't necessarily make anyone worse off. Because the availability of goods would go up relative to their increased wages, and would equal out.
The problem of course is that, unions aren't more productive because they are unions. In fact, unions tend to be less productive than private enterprise in the same field. Thus, unions not only hurt non-union workers because their inflated wages strip away buying power from non-union workers. But also, their lower productivity lowers the availability of goods, which also drives up the cost of goods.
And even worse. Unions tend to be less competitive, but politically powerful. So in order to stay competitive, they constantly lobby the government for special protections and subsidies. These subsidies are taxes, paid for by everyone, that go to protect union jobs and their artificially high wages. And thus, not only are low-skilled workers hurt by the reduction of buying power by the artificially high wages of unions. But low-skilled workers also have to pay taxes to subsidize unions to keep them competitive in the world market.
Even more, unions protect large corporations and hurt small-businesses. Since unions can really only exist in large businesses. And because unions always seek to protect their members jobs. Unions lobby the government for protections for large businesses, and not for small businesses. Many large corporations are able to get tax-exempt status in cities, supposedly because they are "creating jobs for the local economy". While small-businesses aren't seen as job creators and thus don't get the competitive advantage of being tax-exempt.
Sometimes if a corporation wants to relocate to a city, the city or state will actually spend millions or billions building the manufacturing plant for them. Or will give them special licenses that they don't give to anyone else. The unions are effectively the protector of big-business. Because it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Unions can't exist without big business and the government.
The simple reality is that, unions hurt low-skilled and unskilled labor. They guarantee themselves a larger piece of the pie, and everyone else a smaller piece of the pie. To believe otherwise is completely delusional.
Look, I took the time to read your long, uncited commentary, and about all I got out of it is that you are very much a very biased anti-union hack. Much of your other points are simply hypothetical that don't well reflect much of the current real world. For instance, in most states labor unions in the private sector are about all gone.
I bet you're strongly support abolishing the minimum wage. Good luck with that without making it much harder to join a labor union and getting yet more people on the welfare laws, while keeping faith that may not happen, if the cost of most everything falls in response.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
