Recommended Posts
Hmm. In seeing that, I believe I have changed my mind.
Union employees are good souls. They would not rise to kidnapping, hostage taking or violence. Even those who are on strike would never do anything to show any personal animosity. Holding their boss hostage is how they show love and understanding. Why, I'm sure he is being feasted with the finest foie gras and pheasant with truffle cream.
Sarcasm aside - thank you for pointing out what unions are all about. "Give us what you've got or we'll fuck you up."
"[T]he latest wave of hostage-takings" is in the plural. Bosses will increase hiring and pay more per employee, even if they haven't the money to do it. They will if they know what's good for them.
That's what I reckon you are getting at. "If you don't want to be taken hostage, you'd better support unions."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Union employees are good souls. They would not rise to kidnapping, hostage taking or violence. Even those who are on strike would never do anything to show any personal animosity. Holding their boss hostage is how they show love and understanding. Why, I'm sure he is being feasted with the finest foie gras and pheasant with truffle cream.
Sarcasm aside - thank you for pointing out what unions are all about. "Give us what you've got or we'll fuck you up."
"[T]he latest wave of hostage-takings" is in the plural. Bosses will increase hiring and pay more per employee, even if they haven't the money to do it. They will if they know what's good for them.
That's what I reckon you are getting at. "If you don't want to be taken hostage, you'd better support unions."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuote
Striking French workers for US manufacturer 3M held their boss hostage amid talks today at a plant south of Paris, as anger over layoffs and cutbacks mounted around the country.
While the situation at the 3M plant outside Pithiviers was calm, worker rage elsewhere boiled over
Anyone else amused by the article calling a hostage situation as calm? Or can we conclude this reporter is shit, and is lying about one of these two statements?
nanook 1
QuoteLabor makes up about 10 percent, that is correct ten percent, of the cost of a car.
Is it based on the MSRP of the car or the market value? does it account for the factory incentives that usually comes with the vehicles? That would scewer the percentage. Make it higher.
_____________________________
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln
Quote
so you'll harass and intimidate any of your workers who want to unionise?
Of course not. Why not just fire them? It's employment at will, right?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
It is employment at will right up to the time that you are held hostage.
Of course, the irony of employers being held hostage by union workers is not lost...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Of course, the irony of employers being held hostage by union workers is not lost...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
i thought that story would tickle your taste buds 
(he's been 'bossnapped')
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Andy9o8 0
Quote
so you'll harass and intimidate any of your workers who want to unionise?
Of course not. Why not just fire them? It's employment at will, right?
Firing employees for union activities, or union organizing, is unlawful. It happens all the time, and it's difficult to prove, but it is technically unlawful.
Quote
Firing employees for union activities, or union organizing, is unlawful. It happens all the time, and it's difficult to prove, but it is technically unlawful.
If union activity/organizing negatively affects employee performance or working time, then employee will be fired because of negative performance reports, not for union activities. Is it still unlawful?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuote
Firing employees for union activities, or union organizing, is unlawful. It happens all the time, and it's difficult to prove, but it is technically unlawful.
If union activity/organizing negatively affects employee performance or working time, then employee will be fired because of negative performance reports, not for union activities. Is it still unlawful?
Each case is decided on its individual factual merits.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Firing employees for union activities, or union organizing, is unlawful. It happens all the time, and it's difficult to prove, but it is technically unlawful.
If union activity/organizing negatively affects employee performance or working time, then employee will be fired because of negative performance reports, not for union activities. Is it still unlawful?
Each case is decided on its individual factual merits.
And after spending $50k in attorney fees and costs, the employer may prevail.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteAnd after spending $50k in attorney fees and costs
See? Every cloud has a silver lining.
QuoteIs Obama's Car Czar Plotting to Crush the Auto Unions?
Remember Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street? Specifically, remember how Gekko's entire scheme for the airline industry was based on crushing the blue-collar union that Bud Fox's dad (Martin Sheen) was part of? Welcome to a real life version of that story, starring corporate raider Steve Rattner, who President Obama appointed to head the White House team now overseeing the auto industry (and don't say you weren't warned).
As the Wall Street Journal reports, Rattner's strategy is to use the government's leverage to try to specifically crush auto workers and force them to accept even more contract concessions than they've already agreed to:
DETROIT -- President Barack Obama's recovery plan for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC appears to take aim at union retirees, a usually reliable Democratic constituency. After studying the plight of the companies, the president's auto task force concluded GM and Chrysler's survival is dependent on greater concessions from the United Auto Workers union.
The White House has total leverage over the situation because the UAW knows that if the industry doesn't get the loans it needs, it will be forced into bankruptcy court, where judges will shred labor contracts (somehow, AIG bonus contracts are sacrosanct, but union worker contracts can be shredded in a heartbeat). Indeed, many analysts believe this is the administration's ultimate goal.
IMHO, The most immoral part of this is the specific targeting of retirees.
As opposed to younger workers, retirees often can't get another job or go back to work because of obvious physical limitations. As one retiree said, "What 85-year-old can go out and get another job?"
I'm not saying that the auto industry's legacy costs are sustainable - not at all. But I am saying that when you put Gordon Gekko in control of government policy overseeing an industry, you are inevitably going to get a policy that assumes workers are the big problem. If you had a different kind of team, you may have a policy that says, for instance, we have to create a robust universal health care system before throwing retirees off their existing health care.
Last I checked, we have enough money to create that system just lying around ready to be handed out to Rattner's Wall Street friends. Hell, $8 trillion will get us a damn good universal health care system, won't it? Yes, it will - but it will also buy a lot of yachts for AIG execs, and when you have Gordon Gekko making public policy yachts come before health care.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/134389/is_obama%27s_car_czar_plotting_to_crush_the_auto_unions/
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
billvon 2,478
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Is Obama's Car Czar Plotting to Crush the Auto Unions?
Wow. The one move that might save the US auto industry!
Wow. The one move that might save the US auto industry!
thought you might like that angle
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Quote
As the Wall Street Journal reports, Rattner's strategy is to use the government's leverage to try to specifically crush auto workers and force them to accept even more contract concessions than they've already agreed to
Let me explain the phrase "government leverage" here which is used to "crush auto workers". It means that the company wants to pay someone money, but does not have money to do so. This means the current business situation is unrealistic. Another proof is that no private institution wants to finance them. So the company comes to the government begging for taxpayer money, and of course the government - which is acting as a lending institution paid by taxpayers - wants to make sure the loan has at least some chance to be paid back.
If you personally think this is unfair, I encourage you to invest all your savings into GM stock. Or you could just send them a check. This will help the company to pay poor union workers and their (not so poor) union bosses.
Quote
The White House has total leverage over the situation because the UAW knows that if the industry doesn't get the loans it needs, it will be forced into bankruptcy court, where judges will shred labor contracts (somehow, AIG bonus contracts are sacrosanct, but union worker contracts can be shredded in a heartbeat). Indeed, many analysts believe this is the administration's ultimate goal.
I'm not Obama fan, but in my opinion this is one of the things he is doing right. If the contract terms really changed to make the company viable, it would be possible to get more investment without government involvement.
Quote
IMHO, The most immoral part of this is the specific targeting of retirees.
Excuse me, what is immoral here? Did they pay Social Security? In this case they should be eligible for payments. Will those payments be lower than they receive now? May be. Again, nobody stops you from creating a fund and putting all your savings there to compensate them the difference. You can also pay for their healthcare too. But don't forget homeless children!
Quote
If you had a different kind of team, you may have a policy that says, for instance, we have to create a robust universal health care system before throwing retirees off their existing health care.
Sure, paid by GM. The only problem is that GM does not have money to pay for it.
Quote
Last I checked, we have enough money to create that system just lying around ready to be handed out to Rattner's Wall Street friends. Hell, $8 trillion will get us a damn good universal health care system, won't it?
I wonder how a reasonable person could make such a statement.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
hwt 0
Isn't "union tyranny" why the U.S. automakers are going out of business?
_______________________________________________
I could not say it any better. Blue Skies!
_______________________________________________
I could not say it any better. Blue Skies!
billvon 2,478
>Isn't "union tyranny" why the U.S. automakers are going out of business?
Yep. Although note that Ford has a union that, apparently, is not as tyrannical as GM's, and thus they might just make it.
Yep. Although note that Ford has a union that, apparently, is not as tyrannical as GM's, and thus they might just make it.
Quote>Is Obama's Car Czar Plotting to Crush the Auto Unions?
Wow. The one move that might save the US auto industry!
wasn't the first move sacking the ceo (and before that getting rid of the executive jets)
what sacrifice are the bondholders going to give?
remember that unions are just groups of moral people doing their jobs...
QuoteBorder Patrol agents can do it. So can federal protective officers and U.S. Capitol Police. But Transportation Security Administration officers, who screen passengers at airports across the country, are not allowed to engage in collective bargaining.
The unions representing TSA employees say that one result is the agency has the lowest morale and highest attrition rate of all federal agencies, and that they are eager to see change.
They have the backing of President Obama, who promised on the campaign trail that collective bargaining and workplace protections "will be a priority" for his administration. "It is unacceptable for TSOs to work under unfair rules and without workplace protections -- this makes it more difficult for them to perform their jobs," Obama wrote in a letter to the American Federation of Government Employees in October. "Since 2001, TSA has had the unfettered ability to deny its workforce even the most basic labor rights and protections."
So far, no changes have been made. The legislation that established the agency after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, states that the decision on whether to allow collective bargaining rests with the TSA administrator.
A recent survey by the Office of Personnel Management found that 40 percent of TSA workers fear retaliation if they report suspicions of violations.
Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said in congressional testimony last month that TSA employees face a hostile work environment, that job assignments are based on favoritism, and that officers are routinely at the airports 11 to 14 hours a day and get paid for only eight hours because of split shift assignments. Staffing levels at some airports are so low that employees work extra shifts, without breaks, and work on their days off, she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040103716.html?wprss=rss_politics
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Hmm. I was in the Army for a few years. I don't recall paying union dues. Then again, I was an officer, which would likely have made me the bad guy.
I think that the government sees some jobs out there are too important to let union assholes fuck stuff up. Let's say the union representing TSA workers says, "We need to fatten our pockets with higher union dues. Let's demand a pay raise. If we don't get it, we will strike and shut down the whole fucking country until our demands are met."
Can you see the danger?
Oh - and attrition is bad? Yeah. The job sucks and requires little skill. This is different from, say, my job (which sucks and requires great skill). A low skill job does not pay well. A guy working a production line for bicycles will get paid less than a custom bicycle builder.
So TSA is a sucky job. Mop man at a porn theater is a sucky job. I don't think that being in a union would make it a better job.
And if the TSA unionizes, a very small group of unelected people will have the ability to shut down a country.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I think that the government sees some jobs out there are too important to let union assholes fuck stuff up. Let's say the union representing TSA workers says, "We need to fatten our pockets with higher union dues. Let's demand a pay raise. If we don't get it, we will strike and shut down the whole fucking country until our demands are met."
Can you see the danger?
Oh - and attrition is bad? Yeah. The job sucks and requires little skill. This is different from, say, my job (which sucks and requires great skill). A low skill job does not pay well. A guy working a production line for bicycles will get paid less than a custom bicycle builder.
So TSA is a sucky job. Mop man at a porn theater is a sucky job. I don't think that being in a union would make it a better job.
And if the TSA unionizes, a very small group of unelected people will have the ability to shut down a country.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,478
>wasn't the first move sacking the ceo (and before that getting
>rid of the executive jets)
Yep. Note that they didn't work.
>what sacrifice are the bondholders going to give?
What sacrifices are YOU willing to give?
>remember that unions are just groups of moral people doing their jobs...
Some are, some aren't. Not even the rosiest union glasses will make Jimmy Hoffa a moral guy.
>rid of the executive jets)
Yep. Note that they didn't work.
>what sacrifice are the bondholders going to give?
What sacrifices are YOU willing to give?
>remember that unions are just groups of moral people doing their jobs...
Some are, some aren't. Not even the rosiest union glasses will make Jimmy Hoffa a moral guy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-strikers-hold-boss-hostage-1653907.html
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites