Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2009, 07:52 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,148,897 times
Reputation: 6195

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
Of course, I see this as a problem. Job security should be provided by the necessity of the job, one's performance at that job, the value one provides to the enployer. No job should ever be protected by a union. Think about that for a minute. If the job is not necessary, why should the company be forced to continue paying someone in the position? If the job IS necessary, why should the company have to hire anyone other than the perosn or people the company feels can do the best job for the lowest price?
Oh lol Bill. "Job security *should be* protected..." But it isnt! Without protection you're expendable. Surely you know that. If you dont, your bosses definitely do.

As for "why should the company have to hire anyone... the lowest price?" Why indeed. Dont you see this happening today, if nowhere else farther away from your own nose than "outsourcing"? I remember when that began among unskilled workers -- short-sighted, selfish white collar folks laughed and shrugged about it because it wasnt happening to them (sound familiar?). Now it is, and now they're not laughing. Lower salaries and fewer if any benefits are becoming the standard in a globally competitive labor market. This is why I was saying "guard dog" before -- because this is what you're defending (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14979580@N02 - broken link), it's the direction in which business naturally pushes labor, and you dont seem to realize you're asking for it for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2009, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
10,447 posts, read 49,653,116 times
Reputation: 10615
Quote:
Originally Posted by omle View Post
Funny.

The dumbest people I know "teach" in public schools
Agreed !

But lets also mention that some of the dumbest people we know graduate school too.

This reminds me of an old Paul Simon song: When I think of all the crap I learned in high school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,961 posts, read 22,143,591 times
Reputation: 13796
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennySquirrel View Post
Unions have destoyed this country. How many companies have gotten up and left the country because of Union demands and strikes?
The auto manufacturers as a perfect example of how a greedy union can completely destroy a company. Between government mandates, and unsustainable union demands, GM and Chrysler were forced into bankruptcy.

Blackmailed with striking unions, the companies either give in to union demands, or go bankrupt, the CEOs caved in, and hoped they might be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat down the road. But anyone with a brain knew that their was no way to still be able to compete in the market while paying out retirement and health care benefits to current employees, 300,000 people, who no longer worked, meet ever increasing government mandates on CAFE and safety standards, and still make a profit.

Unions start out making working conditions better for people, but over time, each new union boss and worker want more and more until they reduce the quality of the work being performed, increase the costs of doing business making profits impossible, and drive the business owner into bankruptcy.

In the case of unions in government, the unions demand more money, and make bigger donations to the political campaigns of the politicians, and no one cares about quality or costs any more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,936,822 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Oh lol Bill. "Job security *should be* protected..." But it isnt! Without protection you're expendable. Surely you know that. If you dont, your bosses definitely do.

As for "why should the company have to hire anyone... the lowest price?" Why indeed. Dont you see this happening today, if nowhere else farther away from your own nose than "outsourcing"? I remember when that began among unskilled workers -- short-sighted, selfish white collar folks laughed and shrugged about it because it wasnt happening to them (sound familiar?). Now it is, and now they're not laughing. Lower salaries and fewer if any benefits are becoming the standard in a globally competitive labor market. This is why I was saying "guard dog" before -- because this is what you're defending (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14979580@N02 - broken link), it's the direction in which business naturally pushes labor, and you dont seem to realize you're asking for it for yourself.
I realize EXACTLY what I'm asking for. I'm asking that companies be allowed to hire & fire who they want based on their ability to to the job the company needs done at a price the company is willing to pay. Ones employment should not be protected by the employers lack of right to choose to hire someone else. I take this to the extreme by working in a purely commission based business. If I can't convince people to hire ME, and if once I am hired I do not get the job DONE, I don't make a dime. In fact, I lose money, but that's a different matter. I have no qualms about a competetive market. If the employer thinks they can get the job done better, more cost effectively, faster, whatever, then they should be allowed to do so. Want job security? Make yourself more valuable to the company. Or become an independant, working for yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:19 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,148,897 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
I realize EXACTLY what I'm asking for. I'm asking that companies be allowed to hire & fire who they want based on their ability to to the job the company needs done at a price the company is willing to pay. Ones employment should not be protected by the employers lack of right to choose to hire someone else. I take this to the extreme by working in a purely commission based business. If I can't convince people to hire ME, and if once I am hired I do not get the job DONE, I don't make a dime. In fact, I lose money, but that's a different matter. I have no qualms about a competetive market. If the employer thinks they can get the job done better, more cost effectively, faster, whatever, then they should be allowed to do so. Want job security? Make yourself more valuable to the company. Or become an independant, working for yourself.
But not everyone is able, or inclined to try, to live by their wits as commission-only contractors can. You're talking about yourself. Most workers in the world need protection. Im sure you're not naive, but you're defending companies' bottom lines against workers and their families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,175 posts, read 12,936,822 times
Reputation: 4020
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
But not everyone is able, or inclined to try, to live by their wits as commission-only contractors can. You're talking about yourself. Most workers in the world need protection. Im sure you're not naive, but you're defending companies' bottom lines against workers and their families.
Unlike many, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive (companies' bottom lines and workers and their families, that is.) Most workers in the world do not NEED protection, but have been convinced by some that without protection, their employer will beat, overwork, underpay and abuse them in whatever whay they can. I believe this to be untrue. I believe companies WANT to be profitable by supporting their local communities, and by putting those people to work. I believe that the nations LAWS about things like child labor and working conditions provide all the protection anyone needs, and that unions prey on peoples fears of being taken advantage of, and actually offer nothing that the employees need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:35 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,262 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
The auto manufacturers as a perfect example of how a greedy union can completely destroy a company. Between government mandates, and unsustainable union demands, GM and Chrysler were forced into bankruptcy.

Blackmailed with striking unions, the companies either give in to union demands, or go bankrupt, the CEOs caved in, and hoped they might be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat down the road. But anyone with a brain knew that their was no way to still be able to compete in the market while paying out retirement and health care benefits to current employees, 300,000 people, who no longer worked, meet ever increasing government mandates on CAFE and safety standards, and still make a profit.

Unions start out making working conditions better for people, but over time, each new union boss and worker want more and more until they reduce the quality of the work being performed, increase the costs of doing business making profits impossible, and drive the business owner into bankruptcy.

In the case of unions in government, the unions demand more money, and make bigger donations to the political campaigns of the politicians, and no one cares about quality or costs any more.
San Diego is the poster child for Unions gone wild. At the City, County and State levels SD tax payers are getting triple dipped for taxes and fees to prop up out of control pay and pension costs. It varies on the pain threshold depending on where one lives. Somehow we now work for the civil servants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:39 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,405,055 times
Reputation: 55562
dont get me wrong i dont care for the public schools system--- voucher would be better,
however as to unions, americans hate them
they see no connection at all between falling wages and benefits and
their hatred of unions , none.
they fuss about little or no immigration enforcement and exporting of jobs
but organized labor resistance to government/corporate sell out of its people , no way. write your congressman, yeah sure that will take care of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:48 AM
 
Location: St. Joseph Area
6,233 posts, read 9,479,903 times
Reputation: 3133
Quote:
Originally posted by Wapasha
The auto manufacturers as a perfect example of how a greedy union can completely destroy a company. Between government mandates, and unsustainable union demands, GM and Chrysler were forced into bankruptcy.

Blackmailed with striking unions, the companies either give in to union demands, or go bankrupt, the CEOs caved in, and hoped they might be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat down the road. But anyone with a brain knew that their was no way to still be able to compete in the market while paying out retirement and health care benefits to current employees, 300,000 people, who no longer worked, meet ever increasing government mandates on CAFE and safety standards, and still make a profit.

Unions start out making working conditions better for people, but over time, each new union boss and worker want more and more until they reduce the quality of the work being performed, increase the costs of doing business making profits impossible, and drive the business owner into bankruptcy.

In the case of unions in government, the unions demand more money, and make bigger donations to the political campaigns of the politicians, and no one cares about quality or costs any more.
You have a good point about the UAW. I think they give unions a bad name overalll. But here's the question: Is that the natural result of unions? Or can we have unions without ending up like the UAW and GM?

Unions are there to check the excesses of the Company, and the Company checks the excesses of the unions. I think it's all about balance. The auto industry simply got out of balance for too long. But that's not to say that unions are inherently bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2009, 08:58 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,148,897 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81 View Post
You have a good point about the UAW. I think they give unions a bad name overalll. But here's the question: Is that the natural result of unions? Or can we have unions without ending up like the UAW and GM?

Unions are there to check the excesses of the Company, and the Company checks the excesses of the unions. I think it's all about balance. The auto industry simply got out of balance for too long. But that's not to say that unions are inherently bad.
There are plenty of nonintrusive unions - UE for example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top