SkydiverRick 0 #76 October 13, 2003 I can't afford to buy groceries at a store that pays cashiers $20/hr. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chopchop 0 #77 October 13, 2003 IMHO.. Unions offer job security, above average pay, regular raises and excellent benefits all without the employees having to perform well.. Unions promote mediocrity.. which costs everyone but the union members $$. Wouldn't it be great if they actually had to earn their raises through excellent job performance, which would increase quality and productivity of the American workforce? chopchop gotta go... Plaything needs a spanking.. Lotsa Pictures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #78 October 13, 2003 Not in a union. When your Union rep says strike, you don't go to work. You pay someone to stand out there for you, collect unemployment (sure, why not let us pay for you to make us pay you more), and hurt, mame, or injure anyone that thinks that that way is wrong. Makes sense doesn't it?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #79 October 13, 2003 Quote Wouldn't it be great if they actually had to earn their raises through excellent job performance, which would increase quality and productivity of the American workforce? Now stop that you! That's just crazy talk and we can't have that. Crazy talk, I tell ya. Crazy talk! - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
McDuck 0 #80 October 13, 2003 Quote Cross the moth*rf**ker. Unionized, part-time, employees, paying $0 contributions to benefits and making an average of $15/hour. F*ck-em! Safeway wants these people to contribute $5-15/week toward the benefit expenses. About a $1-2/day. Next time I see grumblings of this kind of strike in a slow-recovery economy, I'll broker my own employee-placement firm and draw from people that want to work, versus those that think it's a right. Amen brother. I watched the union BS cripple operations at a US Postal Service associate office, and what I learned was that it taught the employees all the wrong things. Like filing grievances if someone looks at you wrong. Even if it is eventually dismissed, it still takes timet o investigate. But the union reps LOVE that, because it gets THEM out of work when they have to deal with grievances.Kevin - Sonic Beef #5 - OrFun #28 "I never take myself too seriously, 'cuz everybody know fat birds don't fly." - FLC Online communities: proof that people never mature much past high school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #81 October 13, 2003 >Just curious here. Do you cross, or go elsewhere? Cross. Unions were a great idea when mining companies owned entire towns and could break a man if he spoke out against the company; nowadays, workers are free to speak out, complain to management, even quit if they do not like working conditions, benefits or salary. That's a better remedy than a strike. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #82 October 13, 2003 Strikes do promote violence at times. Butte, Montana has a history of being a strong union town. Most folks there used to work in the mines and it is a tough place to live. It's also the home of Evil Kennevel. One time many years ago some workers crossed the picket line to work. A couple of them were shot dead. Then they were propped up and pictures were taken of their bodies. The pictures were then circulated around town saying, "This is what happens to Scabs in Butte." Sounds like a scary place, huh? That is one place I wouldn't cross a picket line.......Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #83 October 13, 2003 >-80 hour weeks I have worked 80 hour weeks; if I didn't like it I'd quit. It would suck to have a union say I couldn't do that. >-no sick time, no vacation time, no family leave act, no personal >days, no long lunches, etc. Unions are there to provide workers with basic rights such as long lunches??? Again, I've given up vacations, sick days etc for work; if I had to do it all the time I'd quit. I would rather decide that on my own. >-unions are primarily responsible for why you can't be treated like a > slave at work A slave is someone who can't quit. Everyone in the US _can_ quit their jobs. There was a time when that wasn't true, and unions are one of the reasons that's not true any more. Times change, though, and many of the reasons that spawned the creation of unions no longer exist. I have no problem with people who want to organize, protest, pull off a work stoppage (in any non-safety-critical industry) or even try to take down a company by having everyone quit at once. If I agree with their reasons I won't support that company. But I don't support unions just because people are on strike; I don't believe unions have any more rights (or are more worthy of support) than the companies themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #84 October 13, 2003 Because I didn't see where anyone laid out what the union was striking about, at least from the worker's point...I stopped by and asked them. These were/are not paid picketers...I know them from talking to them several times a week for several years...they were employees from the store. Here is what I was told... ~Vons is the targeted chain; workers from Albertsons and Ralphs were locked out. ~50% reduction in medical benefits, including all well baby, well woman, dental, vision. ~Two tiered pay scale (newer employees would start on a different, lower pay scale; not sure I don't agree with that, however. I do see the benefits and the drawbacks...) ~Pensions being taken away (not sure I understand that one completely, but that's what they said.) ~Raise freeze until 2005, and then only $.15 per hour They were kind enough to provide me a list of places I could shop should I need to, but I've got a Trader Joe's near me, and I've also got a Costco. I don't have a need to go there anytime soon, but unless someone can explain how it's a productive thing that healthcare benefits being reduced and pensions being taken away is actually good, I will not be crossing the line. And just as an aside...the parking lot of Vons where I spoke to the workers was pretty empty...they are receiving a great deal of support from the local community. Same with the Albertsons. I didn't drive past Ralph's, so haven't a clue. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #85 October 13, 2003 >but unless someone can explain how it's a productive thing that > healthcare benefits being reduced and pensions being taken away is > actually good, I will not be crossing the line. That's certainly not good, but is it better to hire 7000 people with good benefits, or hire 10,000 people with cruddy benefits? Is it OK to put 3000 people out of work to pay for good benefits for the other 7000? Which position would a typical worker rather be in? I'm not saying those are the numbers, but I also know there's never just one effect. You can't just give everyone more pay, better benefits and better pensions and affect nothing else. A cynical view of the company might say that they should just reduce the CEO's salary and pay for all that stuff; a market analyst might say that such measures make a company less competitive and therefore less likely to be able to employ a lot of people. In a free market, people gravitate towards the companies that do the best job of balancing benefits (so the employees are happy) and profits (so the company stays in business and remains competitive, which means the employees have jobs.) It doesn't do an employee any good to go on strike and then have the company go chapter 11, nor does it do any good to stick with a job where you are being mistreated - that just supports the companies that aren't good to their people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #86 October 13, 2003 I need food , fuckem , I'm going in . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #87 October 13, 2003 Quote Because I didn't see where anyone laid out what the union was striking about, at least from the worker's point...I stopped by and asked them. These were/are not paid picketers...I know them from talking to them several times a week for several years...they were employees from the store. Here is what I was told... ~Vons is the targeted chain; workers from Albertsons and Ralphs were locked out. ~50% reduction in medical benefits, including all well baby, well woman, dental, vision. ~Two tiered pay scale (newer employees would start on a different, lower pay scale; not sure I don't agree with that, however. I do see the benefits and the drawbacks...) ~Pensions being taken away (not sure I understand that one completely, but that's what they said.) ~Raise freeze until 2005, and then only $.15 per hour This link can provide a bit broader view (versus what the picketers were told by their unions): http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/10/12/calif.grocery.strike/index.html and here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99891,00.html What they failed to mention to you is what the union is demanding of the company. $.50/hr this year, $.45/hr next two years, and no reduction in benefits. Compare that with the financial statements of Safeway for FY02, and it won't work.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #88 October 13, 2003 I'm not sure where this came from? Quote what the union is demanding of the company. $.50/hr this year, $.45/hr next two years, and no reduction in benefits. If it was in the articles, I missed them. However, this was in the Fox article... "The union charges that the chains are trying to force hundreds of millions of dollars in health-care costs onto workers and limit the access of new employees to benefits despite still-solid earnings." I don't know who's right or wrong. I don't know what's fair or not. I do know that this is a contract dispute; the old contract expired in September, and there was no resolution met. I suspect that both sides need to do some compromising...but that doesn't mean I will cross the lines. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingnut 0 #89 October 14, 2003 Quote They also don't believe in the best man for the job - it's who was there the longest (who has learned exactly how lazy they can be and can't be fired unless they really screw up bad because they've been there for a few year and are union). i feel the same way... my cousin got laid off because there was a woman that would sit on her ass al day and watch soaps but she had ben there for 8 years so she had senority over his 1 year.. he worked his ass of and she sat around, but when t came time to lay someone off he got the can because he had oly been there 1 year vs her 8... this was for the local telecom company back home... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #90 October 14, 2003 One of those articles hit the nail on the head. Walmart is killing them because their costs per employee are 70 percent of Krogers. Walmart is non-union. The UFCW is trying to get that unionized, but thus far is not successful. The UFCW website has plenty of things focusing on Walmart's "War on [Benefits], [safety], [Women], [Unions], [Etc.]" Walmart is the thorn in UFCW's side, as well as the thorn in the side of other stores. Walmart is winning both wars. IN fact, it is Walmart's exceptional efficiency that makes these other stores have to cut costs... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobsled92 0 #91 October 14, 2003 Quote Walmart is killing them because their costs per employee are 70 percent of Krogers. Walmart is winning both wars. IN fact, it is Walmart's exceptional efficiency that makes these other stores have to cut costs... **** Yep! Thank God they are NOT Union! They are able to make $64,000 from having an employee die while working for them (If "on the job" then MORE$$) It's called "Dead Peasant Insurance" by the Insurance Ind. Brokers. The spouse gets to keep 100% of: a "greetings" smiley face sticker That's a fact and my company has a policy on all of us too. .......That's funny,....I don't get "Hazard pay" but they cash in if I make my children orphansSay that's good cash flow for.........??????????_______________________________ If I could be a Super Hero, I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year. http://www.hangout.no/speednews/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #92 October 14, 2003 Verizon has/had insurance policies on us (co. the beneficiary). Been that way since I can remember. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #93 October 14, 2003 Some questions: 1. Do you have life insurance? If so, would your wife pay up to your company for the loss of an employee, even if you were killed outside of work? 2. Is there a system set up in your state wherein there are death benefits paid via workers' compensation or something to that effect? 3. Is there a system of tort recovery for wrongful death in the event of your demise? 4. Would a union pay your wife and kids for your death if it happens? 5. Doesn't it strike you as a huge potential for moral hazard allowing insurance on a "peasant," thus making the underwriting of such a policy somewhat difficult? 6. What difference does a union v. non-union make in this situation? I know that when I was UFCW, I didn't get benefits short of "you are making a few cents above minimum wage." Mind you, after taking out dues, I made less than minimum wage (but more than training wage). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #94 October 14, 2003 Quote I looked online all over, and including UFCW's website. UFCW did not post its budget, or even a pie chart stating where the money goes. It's dangerous territory for you to be asking how long the budget of one of the huge companies that now have top officials going to jail is. Chances are that the budget was huge, just like that of a union. I don't want to compare a union to Global Crossing or Enron. That union didn't protect me. The money taken from my checks was all for naught, in my eyes. Yes, there are bad unions and good unions. Just like good DZOs and bad DZOs. The reporting to the government for unions is going to get ridiculous compared to what a huge conglomerate is required to report. What did the shareholders get from the company? 10 pages? ALPA is going to spend millions just to try and track all they need to in order to make this filing. That, is a big waiste of my money and is being done by the Republican White House. They can't get my union dues for campaigns so they are going to try and pull this bullshit? Grrrrrrrrrrr.......Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #95 October 14, 2003 The GM model has affected Saab, Vauxhaul, nearly destroyed Lotus. Quote Lotus doesn't make anything. They are a design firm, sometimes they farm that part out too. Cashiers and baggers and shelf stockers are not worth $20/hour. There isn't an enterprise in the world where you can just walk in and make that kind of money for that kind of job. You know there are a lot of people in various business positions that are making triple that and really offering much in less terms of productivity for their respective corporation. Most often they are a liability in the business place and counterproductive to the process. American middle management is full of this human equation. But I understand that the apron is easier to spot and pick on. And I'm sure if we had that useless overpaid manager bag or stock shelves he would fail miserably at it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #96 October 14, 2003 Quote Quote The GM model has affected Saab, Vauxhaul, nearly destroyed Lotus. Lotus doesn't make anything. They are a design firm, sometimes they farm that part out too. That wasn't always the case. They used to have a line of automobiles, made in the UK. After GM butchered them they were parced off to a Malaysian holding company. Sorta reinforced my point. Quote Quote Cashiers and baggers and shelf stockers are not worth $20/hour. There isn't an enterprise in the world where you can just walk in and make that kind of money for that kind of job. You know there are a lot of people in various business positions that are making triple that and really offering much in less terms of productivity for their respective corporation. Most often they are a liability in the business place and counterproductive to the process. American middle management is full of this human equation. But I understand that the apron is easier to spot and pick on. Again, I am not arguing your points. But your points are not relevant to what is causing this strike. The cause of this stike comes down to dollars and cents. Nothing more.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #97 October 14, 2003 Chris: You are right. There are good unions and bad unions, just like there are good companies and bad companies. But, if there's a bad company, I do't buy stock in it. If I can't get decent economic data on it, I won't do business. In a way, I had a choice not to join that union. The choice was to work there or elsewhere. But, they take money from people and spend as they please. I didn't like the fact that my money went to help elect Dukakis. I'm sure that if the unions reported how much scratch they are pulling in from members' dues, and where that money is going, there would possibly be some upset people. And yes, these new reporting requirements could be utter bullshit. I don't like many governmental regulations anywhere. In fact, I hate my money taken and spent in places I don't want it spent. US Govt. and unions are a lot alike, aren't they? Cross either and . . . My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #98 October 14, 2003 That wasn't always the case. They used to have a line of automobiles, made in the UK. Quote They designed those cars various others made them and slapped on the name. Production was farmed out. Again, I am not arguing your points. But your points are not relevant to what is causing this strike. The cause of this stike comes down to dollars and cents. Nothing more. Quote Dollars and cents can be misconstrued as greed and lazyness, both of which has been brought up in this tread be posters. Letting the accountants run the policy of corporations without a smart business sense as a buffer is a recipe for disaster that has been a historical fact that is my argument. What is causing this strike is a failure to reach an agreement to would be an equitable compromise to both parties. In this case it is a loose-loose. So-cal is not the strong union belt of the nation people will cross the line. Competion is fierce here there will be major dollar losses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firediver 0 #99 October 14, 2003 I won't cross. If I'm not happy with prices after the strike, I'll go somewhere else, just like I do now. I agree that the strikers don't have the consumer at heart, and neither does management, it's about money...pure and simple. Management want's to keep as much as it can, the workers want to get as much as they can. The consumer isn't, nor will it ever, be a talking point in a negotiation. There's a strike becuase negtiations collapsed for whatever reasons. The business and the workers are all losing money and it's an ugly stressful time for all involved. Skydiving isn't scary;...but clowns...CLOWNS are scary! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #100 October 14, 2003 Quote The reporting to the government for unions is going to get ridiculous compared to what a huge conglomerate is required to report. Unions should be held accountable by a full and detailed accounting. If that is a big burden, then tough. If they are in a position where they are mandating salary deductions for employees at a company, they should have to account for where that money goes. Quote What did the shareholders get from the company? 10 pages? Do you know how long a publicly-held company's financial reports are? The SEC alone requires a vast assortment of filings. If a company wants to be public, the public interest should be guarded by requiring them to honestly disclose the status of the company. Then investors can choose whether they want to buy shares or not. Obviously, there have been failings in that, but that doesn't mean the goal itself is bad. Why shouldn't a union be accountable to its members? If they aren't, isn't it just an unjust tax by a private entity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
