Stalking is legal? If you're in a union, sure!

[WinterBorn]

The poor Rich folks, so misunderstood.

Seriously, fuck them.

So if a business fails, do you as a line worker take on the debt?? Are you willing to take the debt and the hard hit to your credit rating, not to mention the creditors coming after your assets, if a business fails?

If I choose to accept a job on the basis of profit-sharing, the answer is yes.

But these aspects of profit-sharing must be clearly explained in advance of a prospective employee entering into contract. And it must be noted that every job-seeker is not necessarily willing to accept a profit-sharing arrangement. Many want an ordinary hourly wage job.

I agree. The employee should seek what he wants, and accept only the jobs that fit that. Or not stop looking until he find what fits him best.

 

[MikeK]

So you want workers to share in the profits, but not to have to share in the risk?

Nice.

They do the actual work. That's their risk.

No, there is no risk there. They are paid for that

If that is satisfactory, fine. If it isn't, then profit-sharing might be a desirable option. Thus this discussion.

In fact, the worker seeks out the employer, and asks for the job, completes whatever pre-employment paperwork or medical stuff is required so that they can get the job. They know what the job pays when they are hired. But then you want to give them more?

Actually it is the employer who seeks out employees (via advertising, etc.) The prospective employee then responds to the offer. That is different from the implicit beggar status your comment presents.

The workers do the labor. That is worth something. But they sold their labor for a set amount.

True.

But the option of profit-sharing should be available to unionized employees -- for the very same reason as they now have a 40-hour week, paid vacations, safe working conditions, overtime pay, protection from sexual harassment, etc. Simply stated, because it will be better for the majority (the working class) rather than the minority (the rich).

Socialism? Yes. And more power to it!

 

[MikeK]

Even the AFL-CIO leadership agrees that the exemption is a bad idea.

"Even the AFL-CIO has raised only a tepid defense. At a hearing in Harrisburg last August, Frank Snyder, the labor organization's secretary-treasurer, told members of the House Judiciary Committee that he worried the exemption could shield employers who harassed union employees.

"I myself have been stalked, harassed, experienced property damage . . .. and my hotel room broken into on different occasions," Snyder said Wednesday. "Both parties should be held to the same standard.""

Did Mr. Snyder offer conclusive proof of these allegations? Was any union member arrested and/or positively identified as having done those things?

If not, what you've said here is irrelevant.

Mr. Snyder is the secretary treasurer or the AFL-CIO. He agrees that the law should apply to everyone equally.

Do you disagree?

No.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, Poor people do the actual work.

Rich people take the credit.

Rich people put their money up and risk it in the hopes of profits. Workers get paid for their work. Owners only get paid if there is a profit.

Your knowledge of business is minimal.

And your exercise of logical reasoning is either minimal or deliberately cunning.

Profit-sharing does not necessarily refer to equal shares but rather to shares which are proportional to overall profits, including downturns, and proportional to individual levels of contribution to productivity, i.e., a janitor would not be paid the same as a design engineer, etc. The value of the risk involved in starting a business is and should be considered in determining an employers' share of profits. But having taken that risk does neither discount nor diminish the value and importance of the workers without whose efforts there would be no profits.

The primarily positive aspect of profit-sharing is motivation. An employee whose wages depend on the quality of output is motivated to perform at peak efficiency. The concept of sharing extends beyond profits and into every aspect of productivity. No supervision is needed.

I have not ignored the value of the workers.

But I am curious about something. What is the rate of profit sharing in union shops?

 

[JoeB131]

[

I never mentioned any of those things.

IMO it's better to let everyone keep as much of their own money as possible because that's good for the economy.

That's an even dumber statement. YOu probably sh ould have stuck with the Trickle Down bullshit, it makes you sound like less of an ArTard.

sorry, as you can see from any third world country, letting a small percent control m ost of the wealth is never, ever a good thing. Just ask Batista.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share and we invested it in schools, infrastructure and research.

 

[JoeB131]

[]

I have not ignored the value of the workers.

But I am curious about something. What is the rate of profit sharing in union shops?

Wow, Profit Sharing? YOu really went there?

 

[WinterBorn]

[]

I have not ignored the value of the workers.

But I am curious about something. What is the rate of profit sharing in union shops?

Wow, Profit Sharing? YOu really went there?

Indeed I did. I have not argued against that.

But I am still curious whether union shops are more likely or less likely to enjoy profit sharing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Boy, you are really concerned about my job situation and something that happened six years ago.

Here's the hint, boy, i was there, you weren't.

Now, frankly, every time a union guy has done work for me, I've gotten excellent results. True, those guys are mostly family, but the work they do is fantastic, because they really know their stuff. Unlike some scab who took an extention course at a community college.

I can't speak to the topic of building construction, but in utility construction I would put my non-union linemen against any union linemen in the business. Not only is their work as good or better, they hustle and get more work done every day. There are two things that provide incentive that the unions ignore. First, my guys have made a name for themselves, not a union. The quality of the work reflects directly on them. Second, the more quality product they product, the more money they make. You see, non-union guys work on production. They are paid by what they produce. We've never found a lineman in a union who would do that. They all demand hourly pay. Its a pity too. You can make more on production than on hours.

Yeah, how dare they demand being paid for the hours they work!

Plenty of places do not pay hourly. Offhand, the local distributor of Budweiser beer doesn't. neither does the Miller-Coors distributor.

It means that slackers like you have a harder time sleeping on the clock!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The judge threw the case out because of the exemption unions have from stalking laws.

That is insane. Can you offer one valid reason why exemptions from stalking laws should exist for unions?

Yeah.

The fuckers probably deserve it.

Next.

So much for you holding them accountable when they cross the line. You WANT the unions to be exempt from the laws. And why? Because you think their victims probably deserve it.

It's actually quite simple: Joe is a pure sociopath.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

Yeah, just keep making shit up as you go along.

I am very much pro-worker. It is my job to take care of our employees.

But if the picket line is not about anything other than whether or not there are union employees, I will cross that waste of time in a heartbeat. I have done it before, and nothing was done. I guess those union thugs prefer to threaten women and burn church meeting houses.

And no, I am not rich. I am comfortable. I have a nice house in a suburb of Atlanta. I have put 3 kids through college. I have a decent retirement account. And I enjoy my vacations and my weekends. I have good medical and dental coverage. And I have never been in a union in my life. Funny how I managed all those good things without a union, isn't it?

Here is the secret to it. I work hard and I work smart. If I see that where I am working is not a good fit for me, I find one that is a better fit. My employer gets quality work from me, and I get everything we agreed I would get.

OH, you're from the south?

SO you're technically retarded then?

That explains everything.

Considering I have run rings around you in this debate, I wouldn't be too quick to call anyone retarded.

But if you would like to match intellects I would be happy to continue to make you look foolish. Is insult and nonsense all you have to offer?

It's all he EVER offers, all he has ever offered. He simply isn't too bright.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[]

I have not ignored the value of the workers.

But I am curious about something. What is the rate of profit sharing in union shops?

Wow, Profit Sharing? YOu really went there?

Indeed I did. I have not argued against that.

But I am still curious whether union shops are more likely or less likely to enjoy profit sharing.

When my company voted in the union...we LOST our profit sharing.. Thanks a bunch!

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, Profit Sharing? YOu really went there?

Indeed I did. I have not argued against that.

But I am still curious whether union shops are more likely or less likely to enjoy profit sharing.

When my company voted in the union...we LOST our profit sharing.. Thanks a bunch!

Oh, My Gosh, you mean you got decent wages instead of a bit of crumbs off their table?

"Gee, Cleetus, we done be working for salary at low wages, but we done got us some profit sharing!"

 

[WinterBorn]

Wow, Profit Sharing? YOu really went there?

Indeed I did. I have not argued against that.

But I am still curious whether union shops are more likely or less likely to enjoy profit sharing.

When my company voted in the union...we LOST our profit sharing.. Thanks a bunch!

I'm curious, what was the change in your wages?

 

[WinterBorn]

I can't speak to the topic of building construction, but in utility construction I would put my non-union linemen against any union linemen in the business. Not only is their work as good or better, they hustle and get more work done every day. There are two things that provide incentive that the unions ignore. First, my guys have made a name for themselves, not a union. The quality of the work reflects directly on them. Second, the more quality product they product, the more money they make. You see, non-union guys work on production. They are paid by what they produce. We've never found a lineman in a union who would do that. They all demand hourly pay. Its a pity too. You can make more on production than on hours.

Yeah, how dare they demand being paid for the hours they work!

Plenty of places do not pay hourly. Offhand, the local distributor of Budweiser beer doesn't. neither does the Miller-Coors distributor.

It means that slackers like you have a harder time sleeping on the clock!

Line crews typically work and get paid by production. It is a great mechanism for weeding out the lazy or those who do shoddy work. And makes it much more efficient to build a system.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Indeed I did. I have not argued against that.

But I am still curious whether union shops are more likely or less likely to enjoy profit sharing.

When my company voted in the union...we LOST our profit sharing.. Thanks a bunch!

I'm curious, what was the change in your wages?

2 years with no raises at all, then about a 6-7% raise in year 3. Profit sharing had averaged $2200/year (paid quarterly)...and it's gone. The union I'm in redefines "useless"...basically, all the ones running the local are ex-UPS. Since we're not UPS, they flat don't give a shit!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Indeed I did. I have not argued against that.

But I am still curious whether union shops are more likely or less likely to enjoy profit sharing.

When my company voted in the union...we LOST our profit sharing.. Thanks a bunch!

Oh, My Gosh, you mean you got decent wages instead of a bit of crumbs off their table?

"Gee, Cleetus, we done be working for salary at low wages, but we done got us some profit sharing!"

No raise at all for 2 years, no more than we'd been getting before afterward...and lost (on average) a $2200/year bonus. Most drivers (including me) saw a net pay CUT the first three years after voting in the union.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah, how dare they demand being paid for the hours they work!

Plenty of places do not pay hourly. Offhand, the local distributor of Budweiser beer doesn't. neither does the Miller-Coors distributor.

It means that slackers like you have a harder time sleeping on the clock!

Line crews typically work and get paid by production. It is a great mechanism for weeding out the lazy or those who do shoddy work. And makes it much more efficient to build a system.

Which is, of course, why Joey hates it. He'd rather sleep on the clock.

 

[WinterBorn]

When my company voted in the union...we LOST our profit sharing.. Thanks a bunch!

I'm curious, what was the change in your wages?

2 years with no raises at all, then about a 6-7% raise in year 3. Profit sharing had averaged $2200/year (paid quarterly)...and it's gone. The union I'm in redefines "useless"...basically, all the ones running the local are ex-UPS. Since we're not UPS, they flat don't give a shit!

But I thought Joe said the unions exist to help the workers, and without a union they will be victimized by the 1%ers!!!

 

[Spiderman]

[

I never mentioned any of those things.

IMO it's better to let everyone keep as much of their own money as possible because that's good for the economy.

That's an even dumber statement. YOu probably sh ould have stuck with the Trickle Down bullshit, it makes you sound like less of an ArTard.

sorry, as you can see from any third world country, letting a small percent control m ost of the wealth is never, ever a good thing. Just ask Batista.

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid their fair share and we invested it in schools, infrastructure and research.

The government collects billions of dollars a year for roads. States collect billions more where has all that money gone that our roads are in such bad shape?

We have been throwing money at schools for years and yet our education system was best before the DOE when the states had control.

Letting people keep more of their own money is not a problem except for people like you who can't stand the fact that other people have more than you.

If you wanted your family to be wealthy you could do it. In fact a small family working together for just 2 generations could amass a substantial fortune even on modest means.

You take the fact that people won't do it as that it can't be done.

You of course are wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm curious, what was the change in your wages?

2 years with no raises at all, then about a 6-7% raise in year 3. Profit sharing had averaged $2200/year (paid quarterly)...and it's gone. The union I'm in redefines "useless"...basically, all the ones running the local are ex-UPS. Since we're not UPS, they flat don't give a shit!

But I thought Joe said the unions exist to help the workers, and without a union they will be victimized by the 1%ers!!!

sounds to me like he is being victimized by the 1%ers...

But he likes to blamet he union, I guess. Right after he starts smoking the ditch weed.

Frankly, a 7% raise in year 3 sounds pretty good. certainly above where inflation was.

But Wrenchy, he ain't so good at the math.