I second that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.
Michael Brown
My biggest beef with all of this is...
What did the people of Wisconsin expect when they voted Walker into office 3-4 months ago? I mean, he was backed by the Koch brothers, opposed by nearly all the unions during his candidacy, had the little (R) next to his name.
Seems these protests may have been more timely in late October.
That's a huge 10-4 on that.Listened to Rush for a while today. (has he gon down hill)... in among the hot air and spin he let the cat out of the bag.
State workers are willing to take concessions.
State workers are not willing to give up the rights to collective bargaining on issues outside of wages.
Wisconsin workers have been taking furlougs for a while. They are residents and taxpayers too- I think they understand more than the "conservative" press gives credit for.
If you listen long enough... you will get to the matter. Even Fox news spin-nado has the facts in the "eye".
Seems the Wisconsin Gov is willing to leave the 3 state worker's unions who backed him alone. This is a political power struggle plain and simple. And if you can divide and conquer the middle class against each other- you get a cookie.
I offer the following non-union example:
My wife is a SALARIED employee by CONTRACT. A contract means a promise between the employer and the employee and both parties are bound by it. She makes no overtime if she works 60 hours instead of 40, which is most often the case.
When the snowstorm came, the bosses decided to shut down the office. The employees did not make the choice not to come.
Then when the employees returned to work, they were advised that they would not be paid for the days that the BOSSES closed the office.
What this amounts to is one-half of her weekly paycheck. Not enough to go to court over but plenty to dramatically affect our household. Not to mention, in a month she works more hours over 40 than she got in the days the office was closed.
The anti-union folks will say "get a new job" but where are those new jobs? Why don't employers have to follow the rules of the contract? Who enforces that?
In a non-union shop, the practical answer is NO ONE. The employer does exactly as he/she pleases if it's not enough to dispute in court and the little man is at the mercy of the big man.
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...
Michael Brown
Mr. Brown, I respectfully disagree with your example.
Should an employer be required to pay employees when they don't come into work or there is no production? How is this fair to the employer? There was an act of God that limited the ability (and safety) for workers to produce, so the bosses made a decision to shut down for the day.
If the employer violated the contract, you have remedies at your disposal without union representation. You can hire a lawyer or file a complaint with the labor board. Many lawyers will work on contingency and can have fees covered if they win the case. If you elect not to exercise your rights, that's your own decision-- not one forced on you by the employer.
I hardly consider what the employer did as being greedy and unethical. It's standard practice at every place I've worked. As a salaried employee, you can work 50 hours Monday through Thursday and if you're not in on Friday, you're not paid for Friday. That's the bad part about working a salaried job.
I hope your wife's employer goes beyond what is required by law (and possibly by the contract) and pays your wife for the snow days based on the extend hours she puts in on a regular basis.
When workers are being laid off and companies are producing less and less, the bosses still have their cushy bonuses and big homes.
It ain't the worker that's bankrupting this country.
Michael Brown
This!
.
Enter your email address to join: