We stand for a living wage. (emphasis added) |
Some thoughts on unions
by JeffT 343 Replies latest members politics
-
sammielee24
-
JeffT
Villabolo, if I had asked about CEO's of big public companies you would have answered my question.
-
Sam Whiskey
Nardelli's only concern was to make the company more profitable and therefore to bring up the sagging stock price. I think he did a great job....for the company, not necessarily for the employees. But that's how you havet to run a business. However, if you were an employee that had some true intrinsic value to the company, like JeffT, I doubt you were would have been let go.
-
llbh
Sam Whiskey,
Why Germany could be defined as successful? low debt, both personal and governmental, high levels of education, largely funded by the state, a vibrant economy.It is the largest exporter of goods by value in the world. Socialised ( not socialist ) medicine. I was talking to an English guy recently, who works in Munich, he was very ill, he had to find zero in healthcare costs, even if he was not working there, yet was unfortunate to fall ill in Germany, he would still pay nothing, we have reciprocal healthcare arrangements throughout The EU, always forgotten by the right wing in The UK
My English friend was saying how the German economy was doing so well. It should also be borne in mind that they paid a very high price in assimilating East Germany too, and are still doing well. No one is saying all is rosy, but on most metrics it is doing well, and it is highly unionised, which leads us back to Geoff's points.
David
I
-
sammielee24
I'm not sure that I get much of the witching about unions and the complaints, especially from people who keep screaming about their tax dollars and inferring what a waste it is and a drain when it's spent on the public sector.
So, a guy in the public sector is making $40,000 say as an EMT for a 40+work week. That's not a crapload pile of money to live on. He is able to pay his rent, have a vehicle, has good healthcare and can afford to save some. He can also afford to go to Starbucks, out for a movie and maybe a vacation - all of which put money back into the system. He pays taxes. He has never used welfare or any other government assistance plan in his life. He is productive.
Now we have a guy in the private sector and let's use Walmart just because it's the biggest and most known. This guy is paid by the hour, he has no pension plan so he pays into social security, he pays taxes but the wage he is making after that, doesn't go far enough to pay his rent, to save extra or pay his healthcare. He stops at Starbucks, often rents his movies or downloads but because he does not earn enough to live on despite having a job, he applies for and receives government welfare for food, medical and housing.
This is not about whether or not in your opinion he should get another job or go back to school - a job, going to work each day, earning a living - all of those are productive members of society and all should be treated as valued. This is not about him stopping in at Starbucks once a week or renting a movie - both of which should not be an issue when you work for a living.
On the one hand, people witch about paying into the public pension. On the other hand, they witch about the cost of welfare.
So what is the solution for people?
Stop paying anything into the public pensions or stop allowing wages to be set so low that people working are supported by you on welfare?
If we fire all the teachers, reset the pay scale and get rid of the pension system - we might find the wage is low enough that some of those families qualify for welfare assistance, be it from food, housing or healthcare.
Then what?
Do we stop all welfare for people and tell them to live on what they earn? I'm never sure where all this wants to go when the discussions get started. You pay on one hand - you pay on the other. You don't pay at all then make it across the board and fair from top to bottom. sammies
-
Sam Whiskey
Life gives you no guarantees....
Very few people like Paris Hilton are born with guarantees, the rest of us have to figure it out. You either sink or you swim.
I've only got one life vest.... and it's for me. If the rest of you want to give yours away...knock yourself out.
-
villabolo
Sam Whiskey:
Nardelli's only concern was to make the company more profitable and therefore to bring up the sagging stock price. I think he did a great job....for the company, not necessarily for the employees. But that's how you havet to run a business. However, if you were an employee that had some true intrinsic value to the company, like JeffT, I doubt you were would have been let go.
Who ever said I was let go? I guess you need to imagine things.
In any case your arrogant "That's the way the (read 'our') world works" routine, other than emphasizing your moral bankruptcy, only shows that you have selective vision when it comes to reading my posts.
So here is what the rest of my post, that you so obviously ignored, had to say:
The result of this was the elimination of the knowledgeable workers who, when they left the job would only be replaced by high turnover workerswho would never learn anything about their departments. The understaffing was severe. Customers hated it and where constantly complaining about the lack of service. Workers burned out on it and would not last.
But Nardelli, like all calculating psychopaths, knew that he had a captive audience. So what if people hated going to Home Depot? They had a choice of driving 10 miles out of their way to find a Lowes. Once a CEO realizes that their company has monopolized the market to the point where the competition, assuming they have better service, is too inconveniently located for people to drive to, they crapping on their customers knowing that they have nothing to lose.
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU SELECTIVELY IGNORE COMMENTS THAT SHOW THE CONTRADICTIONS OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY.
WHERE IS THE CUSTOMER SERVICE THAT COMPETITION IS SUPPOSED TO SELECT FOR? THEY'RE NULLIFIED BY MONOPOLIZATION OF THE MARKET WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU FANTASIZE IT IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE.
BOTTOM LINE, THE CUSTOMERS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SHOP THERE. EVERYONE GETS CRAPPED ON. BUT THEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE SO DEPRAVED THAT YOU COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR (SUPPOSEDLY SACRED) CUSTOMERS. NEVER MIND THOSE SUBHUMAN WORKERS.
MORAL DEGENERATES LIKE NARDELLI, WHOM MORAL DEGENERATES LIKE YOU HOLD IN ESTEEM, MAKE IT OBVIOUS THAT IT IS HUMANITY IN GENERALTHAT YOU CRAP UPON. SO MUCH FOR YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT THE CUSTOMER BEING "KING".
WE WILL ONE DAY RISE UP AND KILL YOU. EXTERMINATE YOUR KIND WITH THE SAME VIGOR THAT A TAPEWORM IS PURGED WITH.
Villabolo
-
DaCheech
when colleges and schools become too expensive for the common man, freemarket forces them to lower prices..............
if the teachers cannot accept the lower pay, they are greedy bastards and cannot see what's happening around them
-
BizzyBee
I highly recommend (from the series, America is Dying):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piIziXU9RE&feature=related
"If you don't have a moral question in your governing process your process is not going to survive."
The political threads lately reflect the news in general: class warfare. There is a dominant faction which doesn't seem to care that their fellowman has been marginalized, lacking adequate work, housing, food and education. Instead of asking "how can we stack the deck so the rich get even richer?" we should be asking, "how can we as a society foster opportunities that allow everyone to live adequately?"
The moral questions we should be asking ourselves get belittled, vilified, and demonized. How many times have I been labeled a Marxist or communist here because I advocate for adequate living conditions for all, especially our children, our elderly and those who are ill?
-
villabolo
From the video:
"And if you don't have a moral question in your governing process you don't have a process that's going to survive. That's the governing law. The moral question. You must have a moral society, or you won't have any. He couldn't answer the question, neither could anyone else, because it was a moral question."
And neither will at least 35% of the US population.
Villabolo