Wisconsin protest, a sign of things to come?

[JB Books]

Stewball: You are correct, there are a lot of employees who don't appreciate anything. Frankly, employees are typically one of the most frustrating parts of owning a business. On the flip side, why are you paying paying someone "50K a year for a 20K job?"

 

[Billybob]

And guess what, the Legislature is limiting your right to redress any harm done to you.

And given that the profession of most legislators is....

Of course that leads to another Constitutional question that is long over due;
Should the "separation of powers" clause in the Constitution prohibit lawyers who are part of the judiciary branch, (officers of the court, the BAR is "an arm"
of the Supreme Court) from being in the Executive or Legislative branches?

 

[Michael Brown]

I thought I might address Mr. Brown's statement of his wife not being paid for time off because of the snowstorm. I agree, it was not fair.

I have an employee I pay 50K a year for a 20K job. We paid her for 2 days of work during the snow storm that she was unable to make it. No thank you, not even a mention of the fact.

It does work both ways, Mr. Brown.

The issue isn't one of fairness; The employers' action is a breach of the contract that THEY wrote. The issue is that unless the infraction by an employer is so financially devastating to an employee that it becomes worth losing their job over, NO ONE oversees an employer's actions unless there is a union in place.

An employer can fire an employee for the slightest of infractions, as it should be.

However an employee has NO recourse unless an employer's infraction is extraordinary. This is NOT an acceptable practice.

YOU as the employer make the choice.

That is the difference. If she is ungrateful and overpaid, you likely can find another employee if you so choose. Employees don't typically have this type of flexibility.

I don't disagree it goes both ways.

What I disagree with is erring on the side of those who wield the power instead of the powerless.

Michael Brown

 

[ignerntbend]

And given that the profession of most legislators is....

Of course that leads to another Constitutional question that is long over due;
Should the "separation of powers" clause in the Constitution prohibit lawyers who are part of the judiciary branch, (officers of the court, the BAR is "an arm"
of the Supreme Court) from being in the Executive or Legislative branches?

Of course your "long over due" question was answered long ago. You can't serve as both a federal judge and a legislator.
SHEEESH.

 

[JB Books]

The problem is now lots of them are NOT lawyers. Consequently, we end up with stupid, poorly crafted laws that land us in Federal Court.

And BillyBob for all your talk about the Constitution, your questions here, and in other threads, show you really don't understand it. I don't necessarily mean that as an insult. You just ask some really bizzare questions and make unrealistic off-the-wall pronouncements.

And given that the profession of most legislators is....

Of course that leads to another Constitutional question that is long over due;
Should the "separation of powers" clause in the Constitution prohibit lawyers who are part of the judiciary branch, (officers of the court, the BAR is "an arm"
of the Supreme Court) from being in the Executive or Legislative branches?

 

[LightningCrash]

You can take our lives... you can never take our Unions!

Welcome to the Brave New World of Oklahoma courtesy of our Legislature. Let's forget about the years of service put in by teachers, law enforcement, first responders and those in government service. Screw them and their pensions.

That's some good hyperbole right there. Of course with the way you roll it could be a rephrased quote from Limbaugh.

 

[Michael Brown]

You can take our lives... you can never take our Unions!

Damn right baby!

Michael Brown

 

[cjjtulsa]

A union keeps a greedy and unethical employer in check. Employers would do whatever the hell they wanted if it weren't for unions and proved it throughout history. Humans haven't changed their nature, so why would anyone believe that employers today would be more benevolent than in the past? I think this example clearly shows that some won't.

You're correct - and I'll also submit that unions also breed a certain class of employee who has no fear of losing his/her job, as they know (more with each passing year of employment) that the union will get it back. Humans haven't changed their nature, and if they're allowed to do nothing with no fear of consequences, they'll darned sure do nothing. I know this for a fact, as I'm working in a union shop for the first time in my life, and can only shake my head at the blatant lazy, "who cares?" attitude of some of the "30 year guys" on the shop floor. Granted, there are some go-getters, too, but most of those are the newer hands and not the old timers that have been there so long, and have learned that no matter what they do (or how much they coast), the union will cover their butts. One was actually fired for cause, and rehired because of the union and put back in the exact same position. And he's still a worthless POS, and still does things that are against procedure...but who's going to stop him? He even made the comment before - in front of me - that he "doesn't work for the company - he works for the union". Really? Let that company go tits up and see what the union does for him. Move right on to the next group of money trees, that's what.

Unions have done great things for American workers, but that was generations ago. I think they could be a good thing, but it seems they've been taken over by those who's purpose is no longer representing "the working man", but only acquiring power and money.

 

[Biggsly]

You can take our lives... you can never take our Unions!

That's some good hyperbole right there. Of course with the way you roll it could be a rephrased quote from Limbaugh.

Looks like someone asked him to help out during his break.

 

[Michael Brown]

You're correct - and I'll also submit that unions also breed a certain class of employee who has no fear of losing his/her job, as they know (more with each passing year of employment) that the union will get it back. Humans haven't changed their nature, and if they're allowed to do nothing with no fear of consequences, they'll darned sure do nothing. I know this for a fact, as I'm working in a union shop for the first time in my life, and can only shake my head at the blatant lazy, "who cares?" attitude of some of the "30 year guys" on the shop floor. Granted, there are some go-getters, too, but most of those are the newer hands and not the old timers that have been there so long, and have learned that no matter what they do (or how much they coast), the union will cover their butts. One was actually fired for cause, and rehired because of the union and put back in the exact same position. And he's still a worthless POS, and still does things that are against procedure...but who's going to stop him? He even made the comment before - in front of me - that he "doesn't work for the company - he works for the union". Really? Let that company go tits up and see what the union does for him. Move right on to the next group of money trees, that's what.

Unions have done great things for American workers, but that was generations ago. I think they could be a good thing, but it seems they've been taken over by those who's purpose is no longer representing "the working man", but only acquiring power and money.

I don't disagree.

My point is that we should err on the side of the worker; He/she is the one with the least power.

It's kinda like the whole argument over guns; They can be abused but we accept this potential abuse because a firearm helps the powerless defend themselves against the powerful.

I will always err on the little man's side.

Michael Brown