JCC Margaret Thatcher Has Died

would it be randian or just randy?

 

Admittedly I'm not as a well-informed on that issue as I should be, but wasn't that (at least partially) about preventing dues from being deducted from paychecks as a condition for employment?

 

Can you point out to me a union that has ever traded a payrise off for increased personal usage of telephones/newspapers/internet at work? I'm not saying it doesn't possibly happen, I'm just interested of the proportion of cases in which it does.

 

you should move to Jersey. teachers are grossly over paid here and their health benefits and pensions are better than most people who live in the towns they work in.

 

So you do believe in offshoring so long as it's within America and so long as the worker gets paid more, Lando?

 

Whatever, 4%, 2%, even if it was only 1%. Even if there were no annual increase whatsoever. You think the annual wage increase is what makes workers in wealthy nations unable to compete? The dude in India makes in a month what we make in a day. You're comparing the size of an ant and an elephant and blaming the disparity on 4% annual wage increase, what are you on about?

 

Listen I didn't get to say it before but there must be some level of fairness between both parties...

I cant think of many things that are 100% good at all times and unions are the same way. I know they have their faults. There was a time when unions were so important to the workers but one can make a fair argument to how unions are currently sitting in the position the employers once were, theyre the ones doing the taking advantage of now.

I was mainly talking about these gigantic billion dollar companies who are sitting on hundreds of millions but setting up shop overseas. That's when the public looks at businesses as being this "evil empire."
Plus lets be honest, big business are always doing disgusting underhanded things all the time.. Laying off 20,000 American workers, outsourcing to Indonesia and the CEO taking credit like he invented this amazing thing to save some company money. All he did was lay people off so he could get a bigger year end raise.

and the sub prime bubble that crashed in 2008 didn't make big business look better either.

 

I feel so ignored by E_S.

 

From what I'm reading at the moment, it seems as if the prohibition applies only to the union and not the whole public sector. That's not appropriate at all.

 

I would imagine the wage increase alone isn't the sole factor. The wage is not the only financial cost to a company in employing someone.

 

you must also feel thankful as well....

 

I would, but my union wouldn't allow it.

 

My point is that the disparity is so big that Western worker's annual wage increase is a drop in the ocean compared to it. Even if there was no wage increase for the next 50 years, it would still be cheaper to have your call center there. He made an argument earlier that made it sound like the annual increase is the only reason why companies employ overseas. Well, I guess technically that's true. If we hadn't had any increases for the last 100 years, then we'd be able to compete with Bangladesh now.

 

i hate onions
but i loved maggie
her face was craggy
(some would say saggy),
her feet rife with bunions

 

They move there so the CEO and other board memebers can make 10,000% more than everyone of their other workers they have employed...

Remember the financial crash of 2008, CEO's made 20 million dollar bonuses by costing people their pensions.. That's good business if you ask me.

 

I'm glad you asked the bit I bolded, since I was wondering if you were confused and a little lost, or just trolling and I see it's the former.

Again, since I've said this a bunch already, unions do not cause the situations whereby cheap labour is utilised overseas. As explained multiple times, it's simply about bringing the cost of production down to create a more competitive market for consumers. What unions do though is try and price workers out of the domestic market with unreasonable demands. To summarise, unions are part of the problem, not the cause.

Are we clear now? I'm not keen on repeating myself.

 

Frankly, it is not the job of the Union to restrict their demands to within what the managers and owners find reasonable. We are talking about economic warfare here - but the new reality is that with global neoliberalism the owners again have the upper hand.

 

Bugger, sorry sport - what was I not responding to?

 

A previous post, obviously.

 

OK, that means nothing and is worth nothing as statement. Polly has earned it's cracker but doesn't understand why.

So what you're saying is that a union is reasonable making a demand of 8% pay rises being guaranteed each year for 3 years in this climate?

Assuming you're still at university - fair?

 

Give me a moment, I'll go back and respond. Promise.

 

I'm having a little trouble understanding that proposition. If a union makes an unreasonable demand, then on what basis should the manager/owner agree to it?

Surely if the employer/manager agrees to an unreasonable demand, he'll be on the road to putting himself out of business - or, in the case of actual companies rather than small businesses, heading for a revolt from his shareholders at the next AGM? More significantly, I'd understood as a basic negotiating tactic that you don't start asking for out-of-the-ballpark demands, because the other party is just as likely to stand up and walk out of the meeting as smile back at you and say "Yeah. Right. Try about one third of what you're demanding."