This is despicable.

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: shilala


There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

I like your way of thinking.
From now on, I refuse to hire women, minorities, people who don't brush their teeth, people who want to own their own home, and people who believe in God.
If anyone in my store asks God to alleviate their suffering, they are gone. If anyone complains about our broken bathrooms or even asks to go to the bathroom then they can go find another job putting screws in boxes. They're retards anyways, and we've almost got the monkeys trained and to replace them.
I hope you can see that this flow of logic equally matches yours.
[/quote]

That wasn't a good analogy at all. I just got done saying that they didn't break any laws, and your example listed things which are illegal.

I also don't understand why you're arguing with me when you're trying to argue the same point I am. I'm saying that Wal-Mart is bad for its unethical business practices. While they might not technically be breaking the law, they are surely doing business in an unethical way.

 

[ivol07]

Taken from Drudge

WAL-MART CHIEF VOWS TO BE 'EVERYWHERE WE ARE NOT'; SAYS EMPLOYEES DON'T NEED A UNION
Thu Feb 10 2005 21:03:25 ET

The chief executive of WAL-MART on Friday will defended the retailer's decision to close a Canadian store after its employees voted to form a union.

"You can't take a store that is a struggling store anyway and add a bunch of people and a bunch of work rules that cause you to even be in worse shape," H. Lee Scott Jr. explains in an interview set for Friday editions of the WASHINGTON POST.

Scott says WAL-MART saw no upside to the higher labor costs and refused to cede ground to the union for the sake of being "altruistic."

"It doesn't work that way," he said.

WAL-MART'S decision has infuriated the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which was negotiating a contract for the Quebec store's 190 employees. If it had succeeded, the store would have become the only WAL-MART store in North America with a union contract.

Scott says WAL-MART'S strategy for growth is to be "everywhere we are not."

In the United States, that means edging closer to major cities, such as Los Angeles, New York and Washington, where the chain is likely to find less land, higher costs and stiffer resistance from labor unions and neighborhood activists.

Developing...

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Some more powerful European nations may stand in the way of this though, but if we crush a few of them the rest will likely fall into submission.

This is really starting to sound like a plan the Nazi's thought up awhile ago.

Ah yes, the inevitable has occurred.

Godwin's Law

Ah yes, the inevitable wikipedia link has occurred. Here's another one.

Ad hominem

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Yet another fool who has no idea what he's talking about.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Wow, you're much dumber than I thought.

The idea of attacking Iraq (or any country) for the spoils of war is just sick and certainly not why many US citizens back the current war. Pick up a copy of Wealth of Nations sometime. Wealth is produced and consumed, not stolen.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Brule

The idea of attacking Iraq (or any country) for the spoils of war is just sick and certainly not why many US citizens back the current war. Pick up a copy of Wealth of Nations sometime. Wealth is produced and consumed, not stolen.

I hate to break it to you, but the country you live in was stolen. When you try to moralize it that way, it seems that we don't belong here, only the Native Americans do.

However I don't subscribe to that view. I don't think that any country is entitled to its existence. It has to earn its right to survive. It is perfectly acceptable for one country to take over another. Survival of the fittest.

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I hate to break it to you, but the country you live in was stolen. When you try to moralize it that way, it seems that we don't belong here, only the Native Americans do.

However I don't subscribe to that view. I don't think that any country is entitled to its existence. It has to earn its right to survive. It is perfectly acceptable for one country to take over another. Survival of the fittest.

Comparing 16th century expansion to a possible 21st century pillaging is apples and oranges. The fact remains that industry, services, and trade produce wealth. Your viewpoint seems rely on the fact that mutual growth and prosperity are not possible and that if one nation's standard of living increases another must decrease. History shows just the opposite. (no Nazi or Hitler included so Godwin can sleep well tonight )

It comes down to scapegoating, whether its outsourcing, Wal-Mart, or the minority of your choice. Jobs will be lost, gained, and shifted toward management and other areas in the US. That's the invisible hand at work. The US will never have the dire future you mentioned unless We, as a country, interfere with capitalism to the point where companies and workers starve under misguided "help" in the form of law or nationalism.

 

[jdub1107]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: spidey07
good for them.

unions = teh devil

Yep, I don't see their purpose in this day and age.

Agreed

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: shilala


There was no wrongdoing here. Both sides did what they were legally allowed to do. Employers vs. employees is a power struggle, and this is how it played out in this case.

I like your way of thinking.
From now on, I refuse to hire women, minorities, people who don't brush their teeth, people who want to own their own home, and people who believe in God.
If anyone in my store asks God to alleviate their suffering, they are gone. If anyone complains about our broken bathrooms or even asks to go to the bathroom then they can go find another job putting screws in boxes. They're retards anyways, and we've almost got the monkeys trained and to replace them.
I hope you can see that this flow of logic equally matches yours.

That wasn't a good analogy at all. I just got done saying that they didn't break any laws, and your example listed things which are illegal.

I also don't understand why you're arguing with me when you're trying to argue the same point I am. I'm saying that Wal-Mart is bad for its unethical business practices. While they might not technically be breaking the law, they are surely doing business in an unethical way.[/quote]

That statement was aimed at amused's consistant assertion that Walmart should be allowed to hire and fire at will with no regards to employees rights.
I fvcked up the quotes when I responded.
It was a damn fine analogy, actually

 

[Icepick]

Wal-mart simply does not want to pay their workers a reasonable salary or provide decent benefits. They are for maximum profit for the few corporate officers and minimum wage for everyone else. That is why workers are trying to set up unions both in Canada and the US. It's only fair that Wal-mart pay the people who are actualy creating the wealth their fair share. Since Wal-Mart execs (who are much like whiny little babies) refuse to share the wealth with their workers voluntarily, they need to have unions present to see that it gets done. If Wal-Mart would rather close up stores then, IMO, that's better for the communities in the long run.

To those who are bashing unions, just remember that before unions came along our ancestors in the U.S. were working in near slavery conditions in an extreme capitalist society.

And I'm not bashing capitalism either, it's what makes the Western nations great. There does need to be some moderation and a little oversight from an unbiased force (government) to see that everyone's best interests are met.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: icepik
Wal-mart simply does not want to pay their workers a reasonable salary or provide decent benefits. They are for maximum profit for the few corporate officers and minimum wage for everyone else. That is why workers are trying to set up unions both in Canada and the US. It's only fair that Wal-mart pay the people who are actualy creating the wealth their fair share. Since Wal-Mart execs (who are much like whiny little babies) refuse to share the wealth with their workers voluntarily, they need to have unions present to see that it gets done. If Wal-Mart would rather close up stores then, IMO, that's better for the communities in the long run.

To those who are bashing unions, just remember that before unions came along our ancestors in the U.S. were working in near slavery conditions in an extreme capitalist society.

And I'm not bashing capitalism either, it's what makes the Western nations great. There does need to be some moderation and a little oversight from an unbiased force (government) to see that everyone's best interests are met.

Union officials say Wal-Mart workers are underpaid, and two-thirds
can't afford the company's health insurance. The new coalition says the
average Wal-Mart worker makes $6.15 to $8.50 an hour and works about 32
hours per week. Workers wanting family health insurance must pay $192.05
every two weeks, or about a third of their wages.

...

Wertz [Wal-Mart spokesman] said the company does not track
how much it pays on average. About 80 percent of employees
work full time, most at least 37 hours a week, although 33 hours
is considered full-time, he said.

 

[imthebadguy]

good, unions are useless

 

[weezerdude]

Without unions fighting for fair wages and rights, corporations can easily chop off their labor resource with a flick (good job walmart, big win for capitalism!!!). Big corporations and the wealthy upper class have class consciousness allowing them to feed abundantly on the capital and profits it reaps. The working class gets the $hit end of the stick, as always. Why the hell do you think America is losing jobs to thrid world countries... why the hell do you think you talk to non-english proficent tech support representatives from asia?? Why the hell do you think every $tinkin american and first world corporations and industries are getting their labor from another country instead of their own?? Globalization baby!! Aren't we so patriotic.

"Fvck you very much, thank you very much!" - Atmosphere

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's too bad some of you see unions as evil... you usually only hear about the negative things (like when they fight for someone's job that deserves to be cut).. It's unfortunate that the positives aren't heard.

Yeah, we only hear about teachers going on strike for a month or two, or nurses at hopitals going on strike, leaving the hospital to hire temp nurses to take care of the patients.

How callous do you have to be to go on strike when you're a nurse?

Nurses work long difficult hours. There is a shortage of them. Welcome to a free market economy. They have power to wield and they will wield it. Its no different than walmart here, walmart can afford to shut down the store to also crush a possible uprising of union elsewhere. Whats good for the goose...

Or did you think the nurses were going to work out of the goodness of their own hearts and the company was paying them out of the goodness of their's? This isn't a communist utopia.

Unions make some stupid demands and do result in a lot of useless employees sticking around sometimes...but I'm not going to say they're all bad. And given the recent trend of slashing employee benefits to remain competitive, I think we will see more come into being.

You just proved my point

No he didn't

Unions aren't only about wages/benefits... (for some of your information)...
When you go to the hospital, do you want 1 nurse taking care of 20 critically ill patients? Or would you rather be hospitalized knowing there's a safe staffing level. A lot of what nurses fight for are working conditions - and this relates directly to the level of patient care that they can provide.

Teacher's unions - without them, high schools would have classes of 40 or 50 students each. Great way to save money, isn't it?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: weezerdude
With unions fighting for high wages and benefits, America is losing jobs to thrid world countries...

You got your answer in your own paragraph. Companies are started to make money, not to give someone else a job. Smart companies pay their employees well and encourage them with a healthy work environment, to entice the better works to work for them and keep them. Stupid companies treat their employees like cattle and don't care how the low wages and sucky work ethic effects their families - and they go out of business eventually.

 

[skyking]

I'm posting this as a 15 year Operating Engineers union member, so there may be a little bias
The union makes perfect sense for my industry. The empoyment is often seasonal, and companies grow and shrink quite rapidly depending on what contracts they have. Even the best employers, the biggest companies in the construction trades go through rough spells, sometimes missing on several multi-million dollar bids in a row by only a few thousand bucks.
They can't keep all their skilled workers employed under those circumstances.
The Union Hall knows what I and my fellow workers are qualified to do, and when an employer calls, they get a good operator with one call. If they don't, or otherwise butt heads with the guy, they are fired. Simple as that. There is no such thing as seniority in my trade, and if you don't cut it, you are gone. Sure, employers honor seniority on it's own merits, because the person they have had there for several years is also likely to be the most knowledgeable and productive.
In the construction trades, being non-union means having a 401K or retirement plan from every different company you have worked for and having breaks in your medical coverage in the slow times between jobs.
I have one pension plan, and one medical plan. I don't have to mess around re-applying for medical coverage, and being paranoid without coverage during the waiting period.
I get 1 month of coverage for each 100 hours of work, and can bank up to 7 months of coverage that way.
I watch my one retirement grow, even though I have had dozens of emloyers over the years.
The employer gets a trained and qualified worker, who has pride in what he does. Someone had proposed that with no pay incentive, there is no reason to do better. That is the biggest load of hooie!!! There is tremendous pride in my trade, and a desire to be one of those operators that the others can watch and say, " Man, how does he do that? he makes it look so easy...."
You work alongside the good ones, watching and learning what little things they do to be the best. You do your best. When the slow times come, YOU will be less likely to get laid off, believe me. That is plenty of incentive.
In addition to that, the very best and productive workers can privately negotiate for a premium over and above the wage package. If you make the company that much more money, you are well worth it.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: skyking
I'm posting this as a 15 year Operating Engineers union member, so there may be a little bias
The union makes perfect sense for my industry. <snip>
The employer gets a trained and qualified worker, who has pride in what he does. Someone had proposed that with no pay incentive, there is no reason to do better. That is the biggest load of hooie!!! <snip>If you make the company that much more money, you are well worth it.

I think that kind of Union is good. But it doesn't even sound like a union to me. That sounds like a guild/coop.

The unions that people despise (especially here in the U.S.) are ones that are formed at some point after the company is established and has workers, and the workers decide to unionize as a way to threaten the company into giving them more while doing less and having job security. Then once these unions become permanent they rotate their governing body a few times, their own governing body becomes corrupt and leeches off everyone's dues for their own benefit, and workers who don't want to join the union are treated unfairly. The unions become worse than the corporations and then hurt us consumers who pay for their products/service.

Everything you described, I think that is great. More should be like that.

 

[snowdogg187]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Why shouldn't they lose their jobs?! Thats the beauty of it, the bad workers get chopped. Companies don't (for the most part) go firing random employees for fun. They trim the dead weight to help the company. If they make the wrong choices, they could end up going out of business.

Yep, I agree. Especially when these "unions" are not involved with a trade. Such as retail unions.

I want cheaper prices to purchase my goods, and when an arsehole employee is at the store I want them to be able to throw him out on his arse.

 

[mauiblue]

If it was not for unions many workers workers would not have the basic worker rights they have now like vacation, sick time, family leave, etc. So don't put down unions because of this or that. Just remember that when you get sick and need time off or take that next vacation.

 

[WPFossil]

Don't see why so many young people are anti-union. The little guy needs rights too, you know.

The big money people laugh when workers don't have rights. Look at the guy who fired all his workers who smoke (not the ones who smoked at work - all of 'em). He's laughing because he know he can push workers around and get away with it.

The least you can do when you're on top is not spit at the people below.

 

[NetGuySC]

We had a union where I used to work,.. It is out of business now partly for the Union always protected the bad worker. If a person was continually late for work and was written up, the Union would step in and bog down the issue with continual visits to the supervisor and plant manager. The union cared nothing for the worker that worked over all the time waiting for this late worker to report to work.

That is just one small example of why I am sooooo glad to see WalMart respond in this fashion.

Unions may have had a place in business in the past but those days are over. Now a unions place is to drag down a business.

Like I said earlier, all of these Union workers at this plant are now unemployed and I they only have themselves to blame.

another example, One workers job was to watch product come out of this machine, ocasionally the product hung up on exit. 10 feet from him another worker can be having a hard time with his job, having allot of damage etc. The first worker will not help the second worker, for it was "Not his job" , instead he would just lean on his machine and just watch, sometimes laugh at the mess being formed 10 feet from him.

Just on this one thought "it's not my job" it cost the company millions at this one plant.

Unions suck and Wal mart is doing the right thing

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: WPFossil
Don't see why so many young people are anti-union. The little guy needs rights too, you know.

The little guy has all the rights he needs. It's called the dollar and the vote. Consumers influence the success of a company by buying their products/services, and citizens influence the regulation of business by electing officials.

And ironically many of the unions (that so many young people are against) have become political forces that are damaging the business success of the industries they work for.

 

[shilala]

Just taking a moment to dispel the the rumor that union employess can't be fired...
I work out of Plumbers and Piepfitters Local 354. It's a trade union.
I generally work as a Foreman or General Foreman.
I have had occasion to fire many an employee.
When I hire, I give the same speech to my crew every time, "You watch my back and I'll watch yours. Take care of me, and this will be the best job you've ever had. Put it in my ass and you'll be so fvckin gone your lunch bucket won't remember who you are".
I've had one situation where my own union gave me sh1t about firing a guy. I fired him, which meant he would be ineligible for rehire with that company, and he'd have been denied unemployment benefits. He'd also have gone to "the bottom of the list" which is the list our name resides on for hiring. (Each time a man is hired out, your name moves up one spot until it is your turn)
The steward (who was my room mate at the time) took the employees side. He hated this guy more than I did, but still took his side. The steward convinced me that firing the man was unnessessary and simply an ego punishment trip. It took a lot of convincing. Eventually I relented and gave the man a "good layoff", which means he would be eligible for rehire with the company and not carry the mark on his reputation. He'd also be eligible for unemployment benefits if he had any available.
The intervention helped make the punishment fit the crime. The guy lost an excellent job because he was a dick. Grinding him didn't serve any purpose but revenge.
That's what Unions do. Brothers stand for Brothers.
Same thing goes in a factory. If a man is to lose his job, his Brothers stand in his defense. They salvage his job when they can.
If the guy continues to screw up, nothing will save him.
The other gripe I have is the "performance" issue. If a guy isn't getting it in my trade, he's gone. It's a slap in the face of his co-workers. I'm not busting my ass so you can lean on the railing. That guy will last for about a week.
In construction work there is a LOT of standing around. It's the nature of the beast. There's a thousand reasons and most all of them have to do with safety. In some tasks and on some projects there is never any standing around. In nuclear facilities it is very common to spend twelve hours on a task as simple as changing a screw. The flow of the job is not dictated by the manpower, it is dictated by the customer's instructions. In nukes that screw comes with a 100 page manual. If it is not read and followed to the letter, the worker will never work in a nuclear facilty again, anywhere, ever.
If a man isn't doing his assigned task, you can damn sure bet he's going to be gone.
There is absolutely no reprisal for an employer laying a man off. It's the employer's discretion to increase or decrease the work crew at any time for any reason.

Cliff notes:
1. Union employees do get fired.
2. Union employees also get laid off.
3. Union employees stand around for good reason, it's their job.
4. If a Union employee is not standing around when he's supposed to be standing around, he will be fired.

 

[meltdown75]

It's pretty crazy that something that happened in Northern Quebec (a province in Canada) has stirred this much response. I'm impressed. Who needs P&N?