How does one start a union?

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?

You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.

At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.

Good luck....

Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it

Only owners who don't want to keep employees.

If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past 🙁.

In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.

In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.

That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.

For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).

As I said before your views are narrow and your reply just confirms that. Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed, you should take the time and learn which is which.

What you said is the most stupid thing ever. You don't understand how economics works or anything, you are just rambling on like a moron. You seem to think that the world is fair and everyone should be given a fair shake, etc... but that is not how it goes. There is a thing called competition and that is what causes good things to happen. Right now, there are tons of people with skills (like you said) and not many jobs. This causes wages to drop. There is NOTHING wrong with this. It will lower the cost of goods (deflation) and thus cause people to start buying these cheaper items. This will cause an increase in production (because people are buying more) and companies will have to hire more people. This will happen until there is a shortage of workers. Then there will not be enough supply (because they don't have enough workers to make the products) and price will increase until people stop buying lots of stuff. This is a circle that is natural and yes, some people will get burned, but that's the way it works. What you are proposing is to try to artificially manage a problem that will manage itself. Back a hundred years ago there was a major problem when our country became industrialized and there was a need for unions to prevent people from losing arms in machinery and ease the pain of what was going on. This is not the case anymore. We have laws that protect people and all unions do is create unbalance in the economy. If you don't understand what I'm saying (or don't believe me) take an economics class and a professor will explain this to you (for a few hundred bucks).

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?

You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.

At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.

Good luck....

Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it

Only owners who don't want to keep employees.

If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past 🙁.

In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.

In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.

That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.

For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).

Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

Edited: first reply was a bit harsh

There is no one in the U.S. that is unable to go to higher education. It is no one's fault but their own if they are unable to obtain a degree. That is not the fault of Corporations, it is the fault of the individual who didn't qualify for an academic scholarship or save enough to attend. If someone had kids at 18 or even 21 and have to go to work to supply for their new family how is that the fault of the corporations? In the U.S., you are in control of your education path. If one is at the bottom of the bucket because of their poor decisions, they need to get themselves out by making time to goto college or juco. There is always a way if the person wants to work for it.

In regards to

Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

If a company is not paying what the employees should be earning, the employee should either get in touch with the government entity that covers Wages if it is a case of below min wage. If they are just wanting more money because they are accumulating debt by buying rims and pimping out their rides, eating out all of the time, buying the newest stereo systems.... I don't feel sorry for them. ONLY SPEND WHAT YOU EARN. If it is a case of they took a job at $X.XX/hr expecting a pay raise that was not put in writting, then they shouldn't have taken the job. If they think that they are worth more after working in the position for a period of time and the company refuses to pay extra, they should see if they can get hired on at another company doing the same job for the money they want. If not, then they are probably at the market cap for wages in that position. If they can get a job with better pay... Go! If the company is known to pay below market average for an area then they will stop getting employees. It's alot like the theaters.... Do you know why they can charge 10.00 for a large drink (I konw it's not 10 but you know what I am saying)? Because people will pay it. If people stopped paying 10.00 for a large drink, they would lower the price. Same goes for wages. If people refused to work for "sublevel" pay, then the company would be forced to raise the wages to attract employees.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?

You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.

At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.

Good luck....

Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it

Only owners who don't want to keep employees.

If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past 🙁.

In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.

In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.

That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.

For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).

As I said before your views are narrow and your reply just confirms that. Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed, you should take the time and learn which is which.

What you said is the most stupid thing ever. You don't understand how economics works or anything, you are just rambling on like a moron. You seem to think that the world is fair and everyone should be given a fair shake, etc... but that is not how it goes. There is a thing called competition and that is what causes good things to happen. Right now, there are tons of people with skills (like you said) and not many jobs. This causes wages to drop. There is NOTHING wrong with this. It will lower the cost of goods (deflation) and thus cause people to start buying these cheaper items. This will cause an increase in production (because people are buying more) and companies will have to hire more people. This will happen until there is a shortage of workers. Then there will not be enough supply (because they don't have enough workers to make the products) and price will increase until people stop buying lots of stuff. This is a circle that is natural and yes, some people will get burned, but that's the way it works. What you are proposing is to try to artificially manage a problem that will manage itself. Back a hundred years ago there was a major problem when our country became industrialized and there was a need for unions to prevent people from losing arms in machinery and ease the pain of what was going on. This is not the case anymore. We have laws that protect people and all unions do is create unbalance in the economy. If you don't understand what I'm saying (or don't believe me) take an economics class and a professor will explain this to you (for a few hundred bucks).

There's nothing moronic about my view, I just happen to beleive that there needs to be some form of regulation to assist those individuals who can't properly represent themselves. Its easy to say "that its natural and yes some people will get burned" when you are'nt in that position. But the reality is if those people at the bottom rung of the employment ladder continue to lag behind the rest of population in terms of wages you'll eventually be facing an entirely new set of problems. When people can't earn enough money to survive they turn to crime, welfare and other undesirable options. The end result is not favorablefor the economy. Look at Detroit for example, a town of white collar workers who lost their livelihood when most of the industry there closed down. Crime increased, property values went down and to this day they are still working on rebuilding that city. There has to be balance otherwise you end up with the classic case of the rich getting richer and the poor get poorer.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Why is it the responsibility of the corporation to take care of the employee if the employee is doing nothing to better themselves?

[edit] If someone is needing more money to make ends meet, they have over spent. If someone makes 100K sweeping floors, they are still going to spend all of it. Very few people put money away to take care of the future. This is not the problem of the companies. If I make $10.00 an hour, I will only spend money as though I have 10.00/hr worth of income. I won't pimp out my ride, I won't eat out all the time, I wont always cook steak at home... I will spend what I can afford. That is it. If I can't live on anything below 10/hr due to mortgage etc... I will not take a job that pays less than that. It is simple math.[/edit]

 

[ivol07]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Why is it the responsibility of the corporation to take care of the employee if the employee is doing nothing to better themselves?

Because the company made the mistake of allowing unionized workers to work for them. Unions had their place, now they are no longer needed. Lawyers are todays union. Union & Lawyers = SUX!

 

[spacelord]

It is damn near impossible to lay off a union employee. No matter how bad of an employee, the union will represent them and file grievances. As long as a union member pays dues.. thats all they care about.

If you work for company x for 15 years, and another guy has worked the same amount... BUT you are a hard worker and he is a complete slacker you will likely be paid the same. It doesn't necessarily pay to be a good hardworking employee in a union.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?

You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.

At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.

Good luck....

Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it

Only owners who don't want to keep employees.

If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past 🙁.

In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.

In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.

That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.

For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).

Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

Edited: first reply was a bit harsh

There is no one in the U.S. that is unable to go to higher education. It is no one's fault but their own if they are unable to obtain a degree. That is not the fault of Corporations, it is the fault of the individual who didn't qualify for an academic scholarship or save enough to attend. If someone had kids at 18 or even 21 and have to go to work to supply for their new family how is that the fault of the corporations? In the U.S., you are in control of your education path. If one is at the bottom of the bucket because of their poor decisions, they need to get themselves out by making time to goto college or juco. There is always a way if the person wants to work for it.

In regards to

Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

If a company is not paying what the employees should be earning, the employee should either get in touch with the government entity that covers Wages if it is a case of below min wage. If they are just wanting more money because they are accumulating debt by buying rims and pimping out their rides, eating out all of the time, buying the newest stereo systems.... I don't feel sorry for them. ONLY SPEND WHAT YOU EARN. If it is a case of they took a job at $X.XX/hr expecting a pay raise that was not put in writting, then they shouldn't have taken the job. If they think that they are worth more after working in the position for a period of time and the company refuses to pay extra, they should see if they can get hired on at another company doing the same job for the money they want. If not, then they are probably at the market cap for wages in that position. If they can get a job with better pay... Go! If the company is known to pay below market average for an area then they will stop getting employees. It's alot like the theaters.... Do you know why they can charge 10.00 for a large drink (I konw it's not 10 but you know what I am saying)? Because people will pay it. If people stopped paying 10.00 for a large drink, they would lower the price. Same goes for wages. If people refused to work for "sublevel" pay, then the company would be forced to raise the wages to attract employees.

Its not that simple though. Here's an example a man has 5 children and a sick wife, he makes just enough money to provide the basics. In essence he's a check to check worker. If he loses his job he must immediately go out and find another job because he can't afford to be out of work for even 3-4 weeks. He does'nt have the luxury of choosing which job will pay him the most, in order to survive he must take the first thing he can obtain. I grew up in a low-income area and I saw many people who were forced to live like this. In a better world if a person is not making the money they think they should then they can go and find another job, but in reality its not like that for millions of people.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spacelord
It is damn near impossible to lay off a union employee. No matter how bad of an employee, the union will represent them and file grievances. As long as a union member pays dues.. thats all they care about.

If you work for company x for 15 years, and another guy has worked the same amount... BUT you are a hard worker and he is a complete slacker you will likely be paid the same. It doesn't necessarily pay to be a good hardworking employee in a union.

When I was in the Carpenters Union if a guy wasn't pulling his weight on the job he was down the road in no time flat and the union never did squat about it.

 

[spacelord]

wow! thats the way it should be.

It seems like the UAW protects every low life they can.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Why is it the responsibility of the corporation to take care of the employee if the employee is doing nothing to better themselves?

:: In process of editing ::

I think you're misreading me, so let me restate my point. It absolutely is NOT the responsbility of the corporation to take care of the employee. However the corp should pay the employee fair market wage for their labor. Unfortunately this is not always the case and some workers need representation to ensure that they are being compensated fairly. I'm not saying that the unions are the only way to do this and that they are always fair, I'm just simply making the point that there are many employees who are underpaid and under-represented.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?

You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.

At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.

Good luck....

Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it

Only owners who don't want to keep employees.

If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past 🙁.

In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.

In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.

That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.

For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).

Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

Edited: first reply was a bit harsh

There is no one in the U.S. that is unable to go to higher education. It is no one's fault but their own if they are unable to obtain a degree. That is not the fault of Corporations, it is the fault of the individual who didn't qualify for an academic scholarship or save enough to attend. If someone had kids at 18 or even 21 and have to go to work to supply for their new family how is that the fault of the corporations? In the U.S., you are in control of your education path. If one is at the bottom of the bucket because of their poor decisions, they need to get themselves out by making time to goto college or juco. There is always a way if the person wants to work for it.

In regards to

Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

If a company is not paying what the employees should be earning, the employee should either get in touch with the government entity that covers Wages if it is a case of below min wage. If they are just wanting more money because they are accumulating debt by buying rims and pimping out their rides, eating out all of the time, buying the newest stereo systems.... I don't feel sorry for them. ONLY SPEND WHAT YOU EARN. If it is a case of they took a job at $X.XX/hr expecting a pay raise that was not put in writting, then they shouldn't have taken the job. If they think that they are worth more after working in the position for a period of time and the company refuses to pay extra, they should see if they can get hired on at another company doing the same job for the money they want. If not, then they are probably at the market cap for wages in that position. If they can get a job with better pay... Go! If the company is known to pay below market average for an area then they will stop getting employees. It's alot like the theaters.... Do you know why they can charge 10.00 for a large drink (I konw it's not 10 but you know what I am saying)? Because people will pay it. If people stopped paying 10.00 for a large drink, they would lower the price. Same goes for wages. If people refused to work for "sublevel" pay, then the company would be forced to raise the wages to attract employees.

Its not that simple though. Here's an example a man has 5 children and a sick wife, he makes just enough money to provide the basics. In essence he's a check to check worker. If he loses his job he must immediately go out and find another job because he can't afford to be out of work for even 3-4 weeks. He does'nt have the luxury of choosing which job will pay him the most, in order to survive he must take the first thing he can obtain. I grew up in a low-income area and I saw many people who were forced to live like this. In a better world if a person is not making the money they think they should then they can go and find another job, but in reality its not like that for millions of people.

How is this the responsibility of the corporation? Why does he have 5 children if he isn't sure he can afford it? Why does a family have 5 credit cards, a second mortgage and all the latest electronics in every room if they only make 10.00 an hour? DON'T OVER SPEND! It's not the job of the government or any corporation to make sure you can afford any children or the biggest baddest SUV. If you don't know if you can afford kids, USE BIRTH CONTROL!

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Lets say that there are a group of people who are working but have no union representation because one does'nt exist for their line of work, how would someone go about setting one up? Would it be difficult to setup health and life insurance, pension plan, 401k, etc.?

You start by paying people a portion of your pay to manage the union and buy big homes. Then you start to complain that you don't make enough and that you should be paid more than you deserve (we all know that lvl 1 helpdesk employees really should be making 80K a year) and hell, go ahead and complain that you need more paid time off while you are at it. You then go to your union rep at the company and tell him you need more $$. The union rep will then go to the owner of the company and file his grievance against this guy who has invested his own money to build a company that you were able to be employed at and provide food and shelter for you and your family.

At this point, Whatever local union you have signed up with will start throwing around their weight and threaten the owner with boycotts etc... This will drive the owner to either cave in to your demands, say F@ck you or he will just close shop and you and your "brothers" will be looking for work elsewhere.

Good luck....

Thats a pretty narrow view. Oh the poor president of the company, here's a news flash the owner of the company is'nt employing people out of the goodness of his heart. He needs those employees to earn his big bucks for him. We all know that these companies would pay their employees minimum wage or less if they could get away with it

Only owners who don't want to keep employees.

If there were no unions, they would be able to keep employees at subsistence wage levels. I guess it's difficult for some people to learn from the past 🙁.

In the past, there were needs for Unions. I don't dispute that.

In todays world. No need. If an employee doesn't like their pay then they need to find another place to work. You agreed to work at a company for a set amount of $ and there are NO gaurantees of pay increases anywhere that I have ever heard of. If it is an issue with safety conditions, it is up to the employee to notify OSHA of the problems and OSHA will resolve. There is not one single situation that a Democrat hasn't created a government entity to fix.

That being said... If an employer wants good employees, they will pay for them. Wages are based on supply and demand. At one point the IT industry and it's employees were gluttoned with pay because of supply and demand. Now there is a flood of IT employees on the streets looking for work. They don't pay what they used to for those positions. Unions shouldn't have any say in that. Any business will pay the least amount for supplies and resources. Same goes for pay.... If you have people willing to work for minimum wage (and they are competent in that position) why not pay that? It's common sense.

For those that find it difficult to learn from school... It's called Economics (supply side if I am not mistaken).

Many people are forced to take lower paying jobs because there simply is'nt anything else available and many employers know this. Then you have some individuals who never had the privilige of obtaining higher education and they pretty much are stuck with jobs at the bottom of the bucket. Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

Edited: first reply was a bit harsh

There is no one in the U.S. that is unable to go to higher education. It is no one's fault but their own if they are unable to obtain a degree. That is not the fault of Corporations, it is the fault of the individual who didn't qualify for an academic scholarship or save enough to attend. If someone had kids at 18 or even 21 and have to go to work to supply for their new family how is that the fault of the corporations? In the U.S., you are in control of your education path. If one is at the bottom of the bucket because of their poor decisions, they need to get themselves out by making time to goto college or juco. There is always a way if the person wants to work for it.

In regards to

Especially now that jobs are scarce its easier for these companies to get away with paying the absolute minimum. There's nothing wrong with people running companies with profits in mind, but these profits should'nt be made at the expense of their employees being paid well below what they should be earning. There's a difference between making profits and cut throat greed.

If a company is not paying what the employees should be earning, the employee should either get in touch with the government entity that covers Wages if it is a case of below min wage. If they are just wanting more money because they are accumulating debt by buying rims and pimping out their rides, eating out all of the time, buying the newest stereo systems.... I don't feel sorry for them. ONLY SPEND WHAT YOU EARN. If it is a case of they took a job at $X.XX/hr expecting a pay raise that was not put in writting, then they shouldn't have taken the job. If they think that they are worth more after working in the position for a period of time and the company refuses to pay extra, they should see if they can get hired on at another company doing the same job for the money they want. If not, then they are probably at the market cap for wages in that position. If they can get a job with better pay... Go! If the company is known to pay below market average for an area then they will stop getting employees. It's alot like the theaters.... Do you know why they can charge 10.00 for a large drink (I konw it's not 10 but you know what I am saying)? Because people will pay it. If people stopped paying 10.00 for a large drink, they would lower the price. Same goes for wages. If people refused to work for "sublevel" pay, then the company would be forced to raise the wages to attract employees.

Its not that simple though. Here's an example a man has 5 children and a sick wife, he makes just enough money to provide the basics. In essence he's a check to check worker. If he loses his job he must immediately go out and find another job because he can't afford to be out of work for even 3-4 weeks. He does'nt have the luxury of choosing which job will pay him the most, in order to survive he must take the first thing he can obtain. I grew up in a low-income area and I saw many people who were forced to live like this. In a better world if a person is not making the money they think they should then they can go and find another job, but in reality its not like that for millions of people.

How is this the responsibility of the corporation? Why does he have 5 children if he isn't sure he can afford it? Why does a family have 5 credit cards, a second mortgage and all the latest electronics in every room if they only make 10.00 an hour? DON'T OVER SPEND! It's not the job of the government or any corporation to make sure you can afford any children or the biggest baddest SUV. If you don't know if you can afford kids, USE BIRTH CONTROL!

Again its not the corporations responsibility to care for their employees every need, however it its their responsbility to ensure that their employees are paid FAIRLY. This is the point I think you're missing. You're essentially saying that if someone is underpaid all they have to do is find a new job or call their local labor office, it sounds good when you say it but in reality it does'nt happen like that. Because of people's different circumstances in life they may be ignorant of their rights to call on the goverment for helping them obtain fair wages. Its not always about overspending.

You claim to have an understanding of economics which I don't dispute but in order for a society to operate smoothly you have to take into account all aspects of life. You need to see how people live on the other side of the fence. I grew up poor but through sheer determination and hard work I've managed to elevate myself way beyond what I thought possible. Not everyone is going to be able to do that, some people will need assistance in just having the basic human rights.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Not quoting anymore... it's getting to long...

I know it works and I know how it works. I was there. I have busted my a$$ after having 3 kids and being an only income earner with no college. First think I did was busted my a$$ at work to show them that even though I don't have advanced education, I am the hardest worker they have ever met. I have also started JUCO classes. I am pulling myself out of the low income situation. I don't blame anyone but me.

Just like I said above too... If you are offered a job that is paying sub standard wage... DON'T take it. You only have yourself to blame for AGREEING to work for that amount. In regards to being ignorant to their rights.... Who's fault is that?

You mention getting paid fairly. Did you know that someone who was making 100K sweeping a 10 X 10 room for 5 minutes a day would find something unfair about it. What is your definition of fair? Fair doesn't exist in the business world or in the real world. You take care of yourself and your family and that is that.

In regards to those that are unable to elevate themselves like you and I have... What do you suggest? That an employer actually pays this individual more than they are worth? I know that there are cases where people must take the first available job offered to them due to layoff or closings. Why did those people not put money away for the future? I have 6 months of income in a savings account incase I lose my job and have to take a job paying less than what I make here. I did that by not buying a new stereo (I am using a 1982 technique system) I have not bought a new car. Any car I buy is at least 10 years old because that is what I can afford. I don't have Cable. I don't have the newest computer system (I had a friend build my 1 ghz machine with spare parts and older parts).

There is NO reason anyone can't do this themselves seeing as how I started all this making just over $6.00 with a wife and kid. You have to not need instant gratification and buy everything on credit etc....

 

[LaLaLand]

Originally posted by: gump47371

What in general is it that you hope to gain by forming a union.

Can't speak for Arkitech, but most unions want to exist for 3 reasons.

1. More pay.
2. Same work.
3. Half as efficient.

I'd like to see a union represent us at my work.......

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Not quoting anymore... it's getting to long...

I know it works and I know how it works. I was there. I have busted my a$$ after having 3 kids and being an only income earner with no college. First think I did was busted my a$$ at work to show them that even though I don't have advanced education, I am the hardest worker they have ever met. I have also started JUCO classes. I am pulling myself out of the low income situation. I don't blame anyone but me.

Just like I said above too... If you are offered a job that is paying sub standard wage... DON'T take it. You only have yourself to blame for AGREEING to work for that amount. In regards to being ignorant to their rights.... Who's fault is that?

You mention getting paid fairly. Did you know that someone who was making 100K sweeping a 10 X 10 room for 5 minutes a day would find something unfair about it. What is your definition of fair? Fair doesn't exist in the business world or in the real world. You take care of yourself and your family and that is that.

In regards to those that are unable to elevate themselves like you and I have... What do you suggest? That an employer actually pays this individual more than they are worth? I know that there are cases where people must take the first available job offered to them due to layoff or closings. Why did those people not put money away for the future? I have 6 months of income in a savings account incase I lose my job and have to take a job paying less than what I make here. I did that by not buying a new stereo (I am using a 1982 technique system) I have not bought a new car. Any car I buy is at least 10 years old because that is what I can afford. I don't have Cable. I don't have the newest computer system (I had a friend build my 1 ghz machine with spare parts and older parts).

There is NO reason anyone can't do this themselves seeing as how I started all this making just over $6.00 with a wife and kid. You have to not need instant gratification and buy everything on credit etc....

Let me just say that I respect your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. However I believe you and I are from 2 completely different worlds and maybe thats why we don't see eye to eye on this. It appears to me that you expect everyone to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, don't spend money on un-essential things, avoiding having children you can't take care of, save money for rainy days, etc. I'm not knocking you for saying those things because I essentialy believe doing the same thing. However I think you have to really take into consideration that it does'nt work like that for every individual. Sometimes people need help because they are placed in bad situations beyond their control. I'm not saying this for the benefit of people getting hand outs or earning money they did'nt work for, I'm bringing this up because companies have and continue to exploit people in bad situations. Thats why I believe that in some circumstances unions can really benefit hardworking people who need someone to go to bat for them.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Not quoting anymore... it's getting to long...

I know it works and I know how it works. I was there. I have busted my a$$ after having 3 kids and being an only income earner with no college. First think I did was busted my a$$ at work to show them that even though I don't have advanced education, I am the hardest worker they have ever met. I have also started JUCO classes. I am pulling myself out of the low income situation. I don't blame anyone but me.

Just like I said above too... If you are offered a job that is paying sub standard wage... DON'T take it. You only have yourself to blame for AGREEING to work for that amount. In regards to being ignorant to their rights.... Who's fault is that?

You mention getting paid fairly. Did you know that someone who was making 100K sweeping a 10 X 10 room for 5 minutes a day would find something unfair about it. What is your definition of fair? Fair doesn't exist in the business world or in the real world. You take care of yourself and your family and that is that.

In regards to those that are unable to elevate themselves like you and I have... What do you suggest? That an employer actually pays this individual more than they are worth? I know that there are cases where people must take the first available job offered to them due to layoff or closings. Why did those people not put money away for the future? I have 6 months of income in a savings account incase I lose my job and have to take a job paying less than what I make here. I did that by not buying a new stereo (I am using a 1982 technique system) I have not bought a new car. Any car I buy is at least 10 years old because that is what I can afford. I don't have Cable. I don't have the newest computer system (I had a friend build my 1 ghz machine with spare parts and older parts).

There is NO reason anyone can't do this themselves seeing as how I started all this making just over $6.00 with a wife and kid. You have to not need instant gratification and buy everything on credit etc....

Let me just say that I respect your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. However I believe you and I are from 2 completely different worlds and maybe thats why we don't see eye to eye on this. It appears to me that you expect everyone to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, don't spend money on un-essential things, avoiding having children you can't take care of, save money for rainy days, etc. I'm not knocking you for saying those things because I essentialy believe doing the same thing. However I think you have to really take into consideration that it does'nt work like that for every individual. Sometimes people need help because they are placed in bad situations beyond their control. I'm not saying this for the benefit of people getting hand outs or earning money they did'nt work for, I'm bringing this up because companies have and continue to exploit people in bad situations. Thats why I believe that in some circumstances unions can really benefit hardworking people who need someone to go to bat for them.

Thanks for your respect. You are right that you and I will never see eye to eye on this. Thanks for the intelligent (being serious) debate.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

There's nothing moronic about my view, I just happen to beleive that there needs to be some form of regulation to assist those individuals who can't properly represent themselves. Its easy to say "that its natural and yes some people will get burned" when you are'nt in that position. But the reality is if those people at the bottom rung of the employment ladder continue to lag behind the rest of population in terms of wages you'll eventually be facing an entirely new set of problems. When people can't earn enough money to survive they turn to crime, welfare and other undesirable options. The end result is not favorablefor the economy. Look at Detroit for example, a town of white collar workers who lost their livelihood when most of the industry there closed down. Crime increased, property values went down and to this day they are still working on rebuilding that city. There has to be balance otherwise you end up with the classic case of the rich getting richer and the poor get poorer.

Sorry about the moronic part. I understand that there needs to be a form of regulation, but that is where welfare is supposed to come in. It's supposed to help the people who happen to get burned by the system. Note: That is what welfare is supposed to be for. Also unemployement compensation. Unions tend to do more harm than good nowadays. You can do a whole lot better on your own, managing your own future than a union can.

 

[tm37]

I guess I still don't understand just what fair market wages are. If you make 100K a year and your employer can replace you for 40K I think he should. If he can cut his production costs he can lower his prices which should increase production levels. Most unions of today inflate wages to a point that a company can not compete with non-union shops. If someone is willing and able to do my job for a lot less then my current employer pays me I will take a pay cut. Also if a competitor offers me more money I can leave. THAT is fair market wages. Employment is not a right and raises are also not a right. You take what you can get, If you get screwed you LEARN and move on.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: smp
Throughout history unions have only served to lower production, increase cost and generally throw bumps in the road of corporate efficiency. Minimum wage? Benefits? 40 hour works weeks? Child labour laws?
Wow, what a twisted world we live in.

Ah the arrogance of the ignorant! Lets see what has my union done to hold down my company. Hmm forced capital improvements in equipment and processes that resulted in a 30% increase in productivity, Forced a safety standard that is a model for the industry and achieved the first perfect safety audit in the companys history. Initiated and organized a quality process that involves the union members in all quality improvement projects resulting in dppm of less than 25 last year. Supported the company's Six Sigma program in which union members worked side by side with management to develop process improvements, quality processes and operating efficiencies that combined saved the plant nearly 4 million dollars in the past 2 years. and what has the union demanded in exchange for all this cooperation that has benefitted the company so much? Not one damn thing. You see unions are evolving somewhat these days. Not all locals practice the adversarial flavor of unionism. Our situation was pretty unique in that we had both a progressive local and a management team that believed in a cooperative method of improving our product and competetiveness. Management realized that there is a wealth of experience an knowledge at our plant that they could tap and did. What we got in return was a more secure future with our company. Our efforts have allowed us to compete with and succeed against our competitors most of whom are non union. We make much better wages that our competitors employees and have an outstanding benefits package yet our company still turns higher profits than the competition. Turned out to be a win win for all concerned. Try not to paint unionism with to broad a brush you may just have your life saved some day thanks to some of the ideas our union members helped bring about in our product.