The Right to Work for less money

[Quantum Windbag]

No they don't. They negotiate with the cities and municipalities they work for. City of Atlanta workers negotiate with the City of Atlanta.
Management in the business, they pay their salaries.
Shareholders have AN INTEREST as they have their MONEY in the equation invested there.
Taxpayers have AN INTEREST, as they have property and pay taxes.
TAX MONEY IS USED TO PAY THE SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
We are not in the equation.

You forgot to mention that shareholders have the option to sell their shares if they don't like the union contract that is negotiated on their behalf, while taxpayers are forced to pay no matter what.

Move to another state if you do not like how yours is being run. Or sell your stock and buy another if you think your current percentage-owned company is poorly run.

Samo-samo

Can you tell me which state doesn't have taxes?

 

[thanatos144]

No they don't. They negotiate with the cities and municipalities they work for. City of Atlanta workers negotiate with the City of Atlanta.
Management in the business, they pay their salaries.
Shareholders have AN INTEREST as they have their MONEY in the equation invested there.
Taxpayers have AN INTEREST, as they have property and pay taxes.
TAX MONEY IS USED TO PAY THE SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
We are not in the equation.

You forgot to mention that shareholders have the option to sell their shares if they don't like the union contract that is negotiated on their behalf, while taxpayers are forced to pay no matter what.

Move to another state if you do not like how yours is being run. Or sell your stock and buy another if you think your current percentage-owned company is poorly run.

Samo-samo

you see it was that majority of the people WANTED this change so they changed it.....That is how it works here in a free nation you ignorant fascist.

 

[Koios]

Management has a responsibility to the shareholdres as does the governor to the people. (thanks for agreeing.)

So tell me...*

Seeing as how many states are in the red......how is that panning out?

Seems it EXACTLY supports Gadawgs premise.

*Okie doke, even if it's OT. In 2011, 8 states had surpluses. Let's therefore assume the other 42 had balanced (some by law) or deficit budgets.

Meanwhile, the biotech my live-in girlfriend works for has never turned a profit, but still pays the prevailing wages in biotech, to their employees.

Point being, because you're fucking up or having to borrow / seek VC does not remove your responsibility to pay the prevailing wage to workers you need.

Give me the name of that green tech company so I can see how much of those prevailing wages are coming from the taxpayer's pocket.

Biotech. Medical devices; it was acquired by Olympus Japan, whose foibles recently required a cash infusion by Sony, who is not void of problems of its own.

Still, all workers are paid the going rate. If you have an enterprise, and you need people to get there, you have to pay them the going rate. Sorry we do not mandate workers pay for your fuckup. You do. But if you bear some fruit one day, it's yours.

That's how it works. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Koios]

You forgot to mention that shareholders have the option to sell their shares if they don't like the union contract that is negotiated on their behalf, while taxpayers are forced to pay no matter what.

Move to another state if you do not like how yours is being run. Or sell your stock and buy another if you think your current percentage-owned company is poorly run.

Samo-samo

you see it was that majority of the people WANTED this change so they changed it.....That is how it works here in a free nation you ignorant fascist.

Then tell it to them if you're too fucking lazy to leave what you don't like. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

 

[Gadawg73]

No; they don't. They negotiate with management (representatives of the shareholders)

In public employee negotiations, they negotiate with the governor (representative of the people in the state.)

Samo-samo.

No they don't. They negotiate with the cities and municipalities they work for. City of Atlanta workers negotiate with the City of Atlanta.
Management in the business, they pay their salaries.
Shareholders have AN INTEREST as they have their MONEY in the equation invested there.
Taxpayers have AN INTEREST, as they have property and pay taxes.
TAX MONEY IS USED TO PAY THE SALARIES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
We are not in the equation.

You forgot to mention that shareholders have the option to sell their shares if they don't like the union contract that is negotiated on their behalf, while taxpayers are forced to pay no matter what.

Didn't forget.
Knew you were behind me for the gang tackle.

 

[thanatos144]

Move to another state if you do not like how yours is being run. Or sell your stock and buy another if you think your current percentage-owned company is poorly run.

Samo-samo

you see it was that majority of the people WANTED this change so they changed it.....That is how it works here in a free nation you ignorant fascist.

Then tell it to them if you're too fucking lazy to leave what you don't like. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

Aww didum I make you pull a dave?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Help me make sure I understand how union negotiations work. Is it kind of like when Guido comes to your donut shop and tells you that giving him $100 a week will ensure no windows are broken in your shop?

Sometimes it's the private armies, police and government powers that come to your picket line, take away your right to self defense, kill or maim or imprison you, because you chose to negotiate a labor agreement collectively. Your derogatory anti-Italian myth shows what an intellectual light weight you are. I'm sure you'll get some pos reps who believe that organized crime is the main reason organized labor exists, but you're living a wet dream.

BTW, the only person I know as Guido is the the stage name of a comedian, who played a Catholic priest who liked to party. His real likfe sister was the Surgeon General, appointed by GWH Bush. Fuck you, and your ethnic slurs.

You have a little spittle in the corner of your mouth Dick Lick. Oh, my bad.......that isn't spittle.

It's certainly not the fuck juice you suck from the Koch Brothers ass holes. I'm sure of that.

 

[Koios]

you see it was that majority of the people WANTED this change so they changed it.....That is how it works here in a free nation you ignorant fascist.

Then tell it to them if you're too fucking lazy to leave what you don't like. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

Aww didum I make you pull a dave?

I haven't a clue what that means, and yet the amount of fuck I give still = 0.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Want to explain why I should negotiate away my future in order to have a false sense of security now?

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

 

[thanatos144]

Want to explain why I should negotiate away my future in order to have a false sense of security now?

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

Then you only know cowards who doesn't understand adult language.

 

[Dick Tuck]

What is wrong about giving the person a choice???

This is what this is about.

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

That means you oppose laws that give unions control over who can be hired at a shop, good to know.

You lying little piece of shit. I made clear that I give the right to the ability of employers and employees to make that decision.

It's little corporate scumbags like you that want to see laws passed that says such a contractual agreeement should be illegal. Why do you hate the rights of parties to enter a normally legal contract, unless you want more fascism?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Want to explain why I should negotiate away my future in order to have a false sense of security now?

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

Then you only know cowards who doesn't understand adult language.

I think the problem is that I know too many right wing morons, who just want to spout the line of corporate fascism. I still know of no one who would prefer, in a trade, to be not have professionals make sure they get a square deal.

You're an ignorant pussy mouth of the corporate fuck wad.

 

[Bern80]

Referring to the same premise we must go back to the factors which determine what an employer's profit level, which is the direct result of his employees' labor, should be. Should the employer take more profit by sharing less with the employee, or does the employee deserve a more equitable share of the fruits of his labor?

You can only answer yes or no to those questions if you assume profitability should be directly tied to wages. And the fact is they aren't. I can't think of any employee who would want it that way. You'd have to take the good with the bad.

If we conclude that a given wage demand is excessive based on the employees' "skill set," then we must equally evaluate the employer's profit margin based on the value of his product or service.

No you don't have to evaluate one if you change the other. The profit level of an individual company one year to the next has no bearing on the overall market value of a skill set. the profit margin of the company I work for changes every year, but it has no correlation to my hourly wage, nor would I want it to. How what your are talking about is usually handled is in the form of a seperate payment like a yearly bonus or profit sharing.

Consider the wealth accumulated by the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan and other corporate giants of the Gilded Age, who rose to financial nobility by greedily exploiting the labor of workers who were paid what today would be considered starvation wages. This abusive practice, which is the natural course of events within an unregulated capitalist system, is in fact what led to the union movement and the rise of the American Middle Class -- which embodies the greatness of America.

Eliminating the unions will lead to the rise of a new Gilded Age, indications of which already are plainly visible in the upward redistribution of America's bounty occurring over the past three decades.

That simply isn't true. The problem with your thinking as is usually the case with libs is a refusal to hold yourselves accountable for your outcomes. It isn't anyone elses job but yours to make sure you make whatever income is satisfactory to you. And it simply isn't true that if there were no unions we would all be making slave wages. If it were true every non-union worker in the country would currently be making min wage because that would be all the law requires them to pay. We know that isn't the case. A fair wage is pretty easily defined, it's whatever the two principle parties agree on. It has nothing to do with what is enough to live on, nothing to do with what you think your entitled to and nothing to do with profit margins.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

*Okie doke, even if it's OT. In 2011, 8 states had surpluses. Let's therefore assume the other 42 had balanced (some by law) or deficit budgets.

Meanwhile, the biotech my live-in girlfriend works for has never turned a profit, but still pays the prevailing wages in biotech, to their employees.

Point being, because you're fucking up or having to borrow / seek VC does not remove your responsibility to pay the prevailing wage to workers you need.

Give me the name of that green tech company so I can see how much of those prevailing wages are coming from the taxpayer's pocket.

Biotech. Medical devices; it was acquired by Olympus Japan, whose foibles recently required a cash infusion by Sony, who is not void of problems of its own.

Still, all workers are paid the going rate. If you have an enterprise, and you need people to get there, you have to pay them the going rate. Sorry we do not mandate workers pay for your fuckup. You do. But if you bear some fruit one day, it's yours.

That's how it works. Sorry to disappoint.

Olympus made a lot of stupid purchases a few years ago, was this one of them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Want to explain why I should negotiate away my future in order to have a false sense of security now?

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

That means you oppose laws that give unions control over who can be hired at a shop, good to know.

You lying little piece of shit. I made clear that I give the right to the ability of employers and employees to make that decision.

It's little corporate scumbags like you that want to see laws passed that says such a contractual agreeement should be illegal. Why do you hate the rights of parties to enter a normally legal contract, unless you want more fascism?

The only way I led is if you do not oppose laws that give unions say in who gets hired. I guess your true position slipped out.

 

[Michael.Paul]

if wages were an issue, if forces that lead to declining wages were truly a concern we would have tackled illegal immigration. alas it is not and this is just another straw man.

 

[Bern80]

What is wrong is the government telling labor and employers what they can and can't negotiate. Where is the public good in that? Why is it a good thing to limit the ability to negotiate a binding contract?

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, as Righties seem to think.

They aren't paid the same way however. Their wages do not come from revenues generated by what they produce. There wages come from tax payers which is why they shouldn't be allowed to unionize.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Want to explain why I should negotiate away my future in order to have a false sense of security now?

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

 

[Dick Tuck]

if wages were an issue, if forces that lead to declining wages were truly a concern we would have tackled illegal immigration. alas it is not and this is just another straw man.

Everytime someone jumps in to tackle the demand for illegals working here, the right wing shoots them down. Look at how Tyson became the poster child of the right, when their illegal meat cutters were sent home.