Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Wisconsin protest, a sign of things to come?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Brown" data-source="post: 1464347" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I have no problem putting people who are not already in the system on a 401K plan.</p><p></p><p>However I have an extraordinary problem with the city or state, who is ALL of US by the way, deciding to change things mid-stream for an already-vested employee. The state/city/people promised this and they need to keep their promises.</p><p></p><p>For all of those who believe that unions are outdated, I offer the following non-union example:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>When the snowstorm came, the bosses decided to shut down the office. The employees did not make the choice not to come.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Even non-union shops benefit from the 40 hour work week, mandatory safety measures, and other rights won by unions.</p><p></p><p>I will be the first to admit that unions have been corrupt before and will be again. However, I would much rather err on the side of the worker than on the boss.</p><p></p><p>When workers are being laid off and companies are producing less and less, the bosses still have their cushy bonuses and big homes.</p><p></p><p>It ain't the worker that's bankrupting this country.<img src="/images/smilies/nonono2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":nono2:" title="Nonono2 :nono2:" data-shortname=":nono2:" /></p><p></p><p>Michael Brown</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Brown, post: 1464347, member: 18"] I have no problem putting people who are not already in the system on a 401K plan. However I have an extraordinary problem with the city or state, who is ALL of US by the way, deciding to change things mid-stream for an already-vested employee. The state/city/people promised this and they need to keep their promises. For all of those who believe that unions are outdated, 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. 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. Even non-union shops benefit from the 40 hour work week, mandatory safety measures, and other rights won by unions. I will be the first to admit that unions have been corrupt before and will be again. However, I would much rather err on the side of the worker than on the boss. 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.:nono2: Michael Brown [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Wisconsin protest, a sign of things to come?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom