Speaking of Politics . . .

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Unions are for profit companies they care about their bottom line and how much they can make of the backs of their dues paying members.

Max_Archer wrote: His union makes very little profit and provides huge benefits for their members.

I think you both may need to do a little homework. You seem to have some honest misconceptions about exactly what a labor union is, making this among the least productive in a line of unproductive political threads. And with that, I really will get on with my day. Geez. Unions are bad because for-profit industry is evil. I really have seen it all now.

I know exactly what a labour union is.

Your last line is intellectually dishonest and a misrepresentation of my point. But I understand why you need to do that. You tend to do it a lot.

Max_Archer wrote: . Oh, and I really appreciate the personal attacks on my father, who you don't know, and who you know nothing about.

I had to come back and say that he seems good at that today. When I left this thread earlier.. he had an attack against me as well...

to everyone: please do not make this personal we will all get along a LOT better

Max_Archer wrote: It's a freelance industry with limited employment. Nobody works a job for more than a couple years, and most are only a few months. There are non-union jobs, and he's taken them before. They pay you the same rate, yes, until they don't want to pay you overtime, or don't want to compensate you for your equipment, or they just make you do all the hard work in the first few weeks, then push you out and hire somebody much less competent at a lower wage to do the minor stuff for the rest of the season. His union makes very little profit and provides huge benefits for their members. They don't even have to pay dues as long as they work enough hours (about three months of employment) a year, and they're even allowed to take non-union jobs. They have one of the best HMO/PPO systems in the country. Their leadership is composed of people who make their money by working in the same industry as their members. There is one union that stretches across everybody with this job in this field and 90% of jobs are union, not because the union makes them do it, but because it's the only way to ensure that you get competent employees. Corporations are for profit companies who care about their bottom line and how much they can make on the backs of their employees. Those employees individually have almost no power to do anything when those companies refuse to treat them fairly. The only way anybody has ever gotten anywhere in this situation is by organizing into a group too large for companies to simply write off. That's called a union. Oh, and I really appreciate the personal attacks on my father, who you don't know, and who you know nothing about.

Those employees can always leave if they feel they aren't being treated fairly. And you are wrong about the unions being the only way to get ahead. It may be the only way for people like you father but plenty of people do it just fine with out the union.

mad_machine wrote:

Max_Archer wrote: . Oh, and I really appreciate the personal attacks on my father, who you don't know, and who you know nothing about.

I had to come back and say that he seems good at that today. When I left this thread earlier.. he had an attack against me as well... to everyone: please do not make this personal we will all get along a LOT better

What exactly was that personal attack? Please quote it for me.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: Unions are for profit companies they care about their bottom line and how much they can make of the backs of their dues paying members.

Max_Archer wrote: His union makes very little profit and provides huge benefits for their members.

I think you both may need to do a little homework. You seem to have some honest misconceptions about exactly what a labor union is, making this among the least productive in a line of unproductive political threads. And with that, I really will get on with my day. Geez. Unions are bad because for-profit industry is evil. I really have seen it all now.

Maybe I should've said no profit? I know his local and all the ones I'm coming up with are all legally non-profit organizations.

I actually don't think for-profit industry is a bad thing at all. I just think they have to treat their employees fairly and that people deserve to get paid a decent living even if the employer would rather pay them far less.

By the way, I am technically a small business owner.

ThePhranc wrote: You'd think with someone who had such esteemed marketable skills he would have had to scrimp and beg or join a union to get paid fairly. ... if was smart enough to negotiate it on his own. Obviously he couldn't handle that aspect of his employment on his own and had to get some one else to take care of him. But it is easier to relegate that responsibility to some one else so I can understand why some have to do it. It's just like how so many have become wards of the nanny state.

Those all sound pretty damn insulting to me.

You don't just set off and lone wolf your way through an industry like this. You're either in the union and do fine, or you're not and you get screwed. Saying he's not smart enough to negotiate things on his own is ridiculous. It's just not how the business works.

ThePhranc wrote: *snip*

In another thread, we had something called "the race to the bottom for wages" mentioned.

You are that problem. In a market like the US currently faces, the employers have shown that they are willing to go above and beyond necessary cost cutting measures to screw their employees over. Don't like it? OK, you're fired, get the next guy in here who'd take less money than you. This probably tickles you happy, as all you would like to see is more money in your pocket, screw the guy working for you, it's his problem that he barely makes enough money to rent a room somewhere, feed himself, and pay the bills.

Considering that corporate revenues are at an all time high, what gives?

A group of folks getting together, and negotiating via their combined power with the company they work for can help them secure fair compensation, and keep it without getting jerked around (not getting paid OT for OT work for instance). In that exact situation, WITHOUT a union, the employee mentioned would be fired/let go for (made up reason here) if he filed a complaint, almost certainly. Then how does he get his money? By suing? Yes, because he can probably afford a lawyer to go up against the company that fired him.

That is what unions are good for, and that is why unions should always be around. However, I do agree that no one should be forced into a union or dealing with a union. That, is bogus. HOWEVER, if a company signs a contract with a union STATING they will only hire people through that union, well, then you gotta play by the rules.

Max_Archer wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: You'd think with someone who had such esteemed marketable skills he would have had to scrimp and beg or join a union to get paid fairly. ... if was smart enough to negotiate it on his own. Obviously he couldn't handle that aspect of his employment on his own and had to get some one else to take care of him. But it is easier to relegate that responsibility to some one else so I can understand why some have to do it. It's just like how so many have become wards of the nanny state.

Those all sound pretty damn insulting to me. You don't just set off and lone wolf your way through an industry like this. You're either in the union and do fine, or you're not and you get screwed. Saying he's not smart enough to negotiate things on his own is ridiculous. It's just not how the business works.

So its ok for you to say you daddy couldn't do it with out a union but when I say the same thing its insulting because I mention why your daddy couldn't do it with out the union.

Is it true or not that your daddy couldn't do it without the union because he couldn't alone or not? If the truth is insulting so be it.

It simply isn't rue that without the union you get screwed. That only works if you aren't able to stand up and do it your self. Lots of people aren't. Your father is one of them. Thats not an insult its a fact.

ThePhranc wrote:

Max_Archer wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: You'd think with someone who had such esteemed marketable skills he would have had to scrimp and beg or join a union to get paid fairly. ... if was smart enough to negotiate it on his own. Obviously he couldn't handle that aspect of his employment on his own and had to get some one else to take care of him. But it is easier to relegate that responsibility to some one else so I can understand why some have to do it. It's just like how so many have become wards of the nanny state.

Those all sound pretty damn insulting to me. You don't just set off and lone wolf your way through an industry like this. You're either in the union and do fine, or you're not and you get screwed. Saying he's not smart enough to negotiate things on his own is ridiculous. It's just not how the business works.

So its ok for you to say you daddy couldn't do it with out a union but when I say the same thing its insulting because I mention why your daddy couldn't do it with out the union. Is it true or not that your daddy couldn't do it without the union because he couldn't alone or not? If the truth is insulting so be it. It simply isn't rue that without the union you get screwed. That only works if you aren't able to stand up and do it your self. Lots of people aren't. Your father is one of them. Thats not an insult its a fact.

Dude, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and I really don't appreciate the tone you're taking with me.

Individual people have very little power to do anything with a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees. You make trouble, you get fired. Yeah, he probably could try and do some stuff himself, but not only would that entail taking a company to court and fighting a costly and lengthy battle against some of the best lawyers in the world, it would make him somebody who'd never get a job in the business again. The only way employees can make a meaningful stand on issues in these cases is by being able to shut the whole industry down if they get mistreated. One person will just get cast aside and replaced, no matter how good they are at their job. Everybody is expendable in business.

If it weren't for the unions, there wouldn't even be such things as minimum pay, health benefits, or overtime to begin with. Companies used to get away with making people work 80 hour weeks and not paying for it. The only way that changed is because of the unions. Instead of parroting all the ridiculous anti-union dogma that's spewed everywhere, it might be worth actually looking at the past and the present and seeing what unions are really doing, not what a bunch of people who stand to benefit from destroying the unions say about them.

HiTempguy wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: *snip*

In another thread, we had something called "the race to the bottom for wages" mentioned. You are that problem. In a market like the US currently faces, the employers have shown that they are willing to go above and beyond necessary cost cutting measures to screw their employees over. Don't like it? OK, you're fired, get the next guy in here who'd take less money than you. This probably tickles you happy, as all you would like to see is more money in your pocket, screw the guy working for you, it's his problem that he barely makes enough money to rent a room somewhere, feed himself, and pay the bills. Considering that corporate revenues are at an all time high, what gives? A group of folks getting together, and negotiating via their combined power with the company they work for can help them secure fair compensation, and keep it without getting jerked around (not getting paid OT for OT work for instance). In that exact situation, WITHOUT a union, the employee mentioned would be fired/let go for (made up reason here) if he filed a complaint, almost certainly. Then how does he get his money? By suing? Yes, because he can probably afford a lawyer to go up against the company that fired him. That is what unions are good for, and that is why unions should always be around. However, I do agree that no one should be forced into a union or dealing with a union. That, is bogus. HOWEVER, if a company signs a contract with a union STATING they will only hire people through that union, well, then you gotta play by the rules.

I'm that problem? So how many people have I fired to cut costs?

In case you didn't know the company owners own the company. If you don't like you can always leave no one is forced to work at any particular company. A smart owner will make sure that his good employees don't leave and while others are being let go from other companies they will see to it they pick the good employees that are now free market.

Have you ever owned a company? From your ignorance I'm going to assume not. Or you wouldn't be making them. Why would letting go productive trained workers for some one who isn't as trained tickle me in any way? Its a net lose because I have to train the new person to the level of the one who I fired according to you. It wouldn't make economic sense. When I put two kids through college, some thing I never did my self, was that screwing them? My pocket got lighter because of that. Do you even know what kind of wages I pay? How about my turn over rate? Unions make up less than 12% of the American work force and most of that is government union workers. According to you over 80% of the work force can't do anything about anything and will just get screwed. That bullE36 M3.

HiTempguy wrote: Considering that corporate revenues are at an all time high, what gives?

Do you know the definitions of "revenue", "profit", and "profit margin" - and how they differ from each other?

Huge revenue by itself means nothing. Huge profit by itself means nothing. What matters is profit MARGIN - and that only matters in the context of return on investment.

It's perfectly possible to make billions of dollars in revenue and millions of dollars in profit, yet make very little actual in terms of return on investment.

ThePhranc wrote: I know exactly what a labour union is. Your last line is intellectually dishonest and a misrepresentation of my point. But I understand why you need to do that. You tend to do it a lot.

The guy who said labor unions are for-profit industry is calling me intellectually dishonest, some kind of buzz phrase you picked up somewhere.

Before you go casting stones, look over your posts in just this thread. You tend to do a lot of things a lot. All I tend to do a lot is point out when you're wrong.

I have analyzed you with my superior mind and now see what you will do before you do it. For instance, you’re about to attack Max Archer and his father. Furthermore, you will excuse your condescending tone, hiding behind a label of “truth”. Then you will call me a liar and be dismissive of my points with some condecending comment. You look at the past and the present. I look at the future.

By the way, what you're about to say about right to work states misrepresents what they are.

Max_Archer wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

Max_Archer wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: You'd think with someone who had such esteemed marketable skills he would have had to scrimp and beg or join a union to get paid fairly. ... if was smart enough to negotiate it on his own. Obviously he couldn't handle that aspect of his employment on his own and had to get some one else to take care of him. But it is easier to relegate that responsibility to some one else so I can understand why some have to do it. It's just like how so many have become wards of the nanny state.

Those all sound pretty damn insulting to me. You don't just set off and lone wolf your way through an industry like this. You're either in the union and do fine, or you're not and you get screwed. Saying he's not smart enough to negotiate things on his own is ridiculous. It's just not how the business works.

So its ok for you to say you daddy couldn't do it with out a union but when I say the same thing its insulting because I mention why your daddy couldn't do it with out the union. Is it true or not that your daddy couldn't do it without the union because he couldn't alone or not? If the truth is insulting so be it. It simply isn't rue that without the union you get screwed. That only works if you aren't able to stand up and do it your self. Lots of people aren't. Your father is one of them. Thats not an insult its a fact.

Dude, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and I really don't appreciate the tone you're taking with me. Individual people have very little power to do anything with a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees. You make trouble, you get fired. Yeah, he probably could try and do some stuff himself, but not only would that entail taking a company to court and fighting a costly and lengthy battle against some of the best lawyers in the world, it would make him somebody who'd never get a job in the business again. The only way employees can make a meaningful stand on issues in these cases is by being able to shut the whole industry down if they get mistreated. One person will just get cast aside and replaced, no matter how good they are at their job. Everybody is expendable in business. If it weren't for the unions, there wouldn't even be such things as minimum pay, health benefits, or overtime to begin with. Companies used to get away with making people work 80 hour weeks and not paying for it. The only way that changed is because of the unions. Instead of parroting all the ridiculous anti-union dogma that's spewed everywhere, it might be worth actually looking at the past and the present and seeing what unions are really doing, not what a bunch of people who stand to benefit from destroying the unions say about them.

Stop with the lies about how with out unions people just get fired or there wouldn't be health benefits or over time. Its just not true. It is the union toady line though and you tow it like a champ. I have looked at the past and the present and thats why I opened shop in a right to work state where I can tell the unions to go stuff it.

I understand you dont appreciate the tone. Thats too bad. Most people don't like it when people tell them the truths they don't want to hear. You said it your self you daddy couldn't hack it getting by on his own and needed help. Just because your daddy is like that doesn't mean every one is like that. Plenty of people get by with out unions just fine. You daddy just wasn't one of them. I know you think that the truth like that is an insult but it isn't.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: I know exactly what a labour union is. Your last line is intellectually dishonest and a misrepresentation of my point. But I understand why you need to do that. You tend to do it a lot.

The guy who said labor unions are for-profit industry is calling me intellectually dishonest, some kind of buzz phrase you picked up somewhere. Before you go casting stones, look over your posts in just this thread. You tend to do a lot of things a lot. All I tend to do a lot is point out when you're wrong.

See when you lie about things like the point I was making you aren't pointing out where I was wrong you are just making things up in an intellectually dishonest way. But I understand why you need to do that.

I <3 pie

Strawberry-rhubarb......

In reply to ThePhranc:

Your last post is dishonestly intellectual. You do that a lot. But it's okay. As you can see, I have psychoanalyzed you and understand what you're going to do before you do it. It's because of my superior intellectually smart intellect. From my superior vantage point I can point the finger of judgment in a way you couldn’t begin to understand. I’m so glad that I’m so much better than you, but I understand why you are what you are.

You see, I have the virtues of being condescending and judgmental. I dismiss all you have to say since you clearly aren’t up to having a conversation on my level.

Think for a minute- what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to convince anyone of anything? If so, do you really think being condescending and judgmental is working for you? Do you think personal attacks on people you’ve never met will change any minds? And you completely mischaracterize my posts.

It’s okay. I understand why you do it.

For instance when you say:

ThePhranc wrote: See when you lie about things like the point I was making you aren't pointing out where I was wrong you are just making things up in an intellectually dishonest way. But I understand why you need to do that.

You think this sounds very smart, but you are about to do exactly what you accuse me of. You'll say something like “you claim to know people who own multi-billion corps you might want to actually ask them about things because you haven't been right about much” but you’ll fail to point out what it is that was said that is wrong. But it’s okay. I understand why you do it.

You'll very likely accuse Max Archer of doing exactly what he is accusing you of doing, but I accuse you of doing exactly what you're accusing him of accusing you of doing. You stand accused!

ThePhranc wrote:

Max_Archer wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

Max_Archer wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: You'd think with someone who had such esteemed marketable skills he would have had to scrimp and beg or join a union to get paid fairly. ... if was smart enough to negotiate it on his own. Obviously he couldn't handle that aspect of his employment on his own and had to get some one else to take care of him. But it is easier to relegate that responsibility to some one else so I can understand why some have to do it. It's just like how so many have become wards of the nanny state.

Those all sound pretty damn insulting to me. You don't just set off and lone wolf your way through an industry like this. You're either in the union and do fine, or you're not and you get screwed. Saying he's not smart enough to negotiate things on his own is ridiculous. It's just not how the business works.

So its ok for you to say you daddy couldn't do it with out a union but when I say the same thing its insulting because I mention why your daddy couldn't do it with out the union. Is it true or not that your daddy couldn't do it without the union because he couldn't alone or not? If the truth is insulting so be it. It simply isn't rue that without the union you get screwed. That only works if you aren't able to stand up and do it your self. Lots of people aren't. Your father is one of them. Thats not an insult its a fact.

Dude, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and I really don't appreciate the tone you're taking with me. Individual people have very little power to do anything with a multi-billion dollar international company with tens of thousands of employees. You make trouble, you get fired. Yeah, he probably could try and do some stuff himself, but not only would that entail taking a company to court and fighting a costly and lengthy battle against some of the best lawyers in the world, it would make him somebody who'd never get a job in the business again. The only way employees can make a meaningful stand on issues in these cases is by being able to shut the whole industry down if they get mistreated. One person will just get cast aside and replaced, no matter how good they are at their job. Everybody is expendable in business. If it weren't for the unions, there wouldn't even be such things as minimum pay, health benefits, or overtime to begin with. Companies used to get away with making people work 80 hour weeks and not paying for it. The only way that changed is because of the unions. Instead of parroting all the ridiculous anti-union dogma that's spewed everywhere, it might be worth actually looking at the past and the present and seeing what unions are really doing, not what a bunch of people who stand to benefit from destroying the unions say about them.

Stop with the lies about how with out unions people just get fired or there wouldn't be health benefits or over time. Its just not true. It is the union toady line though and you tow it like a champ. I have looked at the past and the present and thats why I opened shop in a right to work state where I can tell the unions to go stuff it. I understand you dont appreciate the tone. Thats too bad. Most people don't like it when people tell them the truths they don't want to hear. You said it your self you daddy couldn't hack it getting by on his own and needed help. Just because your daddy is like that doesn't mean every one is like that. Plenty of people get by with out unions just fine. You daddy just wasn't one of them. I know you think that the truth like that is an insult but it isn't.

Oh, now I'm a liar. Funny how you're the one who stands to benefit from discrediting unions and I get absolutely nothing by supporting them.

Plenty of people work jobs at places like Walmart where they're getting screwed left and right every day and there's nothing they can do about it without getting fired. Where do you think benefits and overtime came from? Company owners just offered it out of the goodness of their hearts?

If you treat your employees fairly, that's great. There are companies out there that do. It's not an issue with them. It's the companies that try and screw their employees at every turn that cause those employees to have to do something about it.

When you're in a union industry, you join the union and the majority of jobs only employ union people. If you're not in the union, you can only get the lowest tier, worst paying, shortest employment jobs. You don't just walk in without the union on a big job and dictate your own terms. The company isn't even allowed to hire you under those circumstances. I don't know how he'd "hack it" on his own in those circumstances. Being a member of the union costs him nothing, provides tons of benefits, and the union is a non-profit lead by volunteers.

By the way, don't think I'm clueless about large companies, either. I have family members and friends who own multi-billion dollar corporations. I'm well aware of how they run, how things happen at the top, and what their motivations are.

In reply to Max_Archer:

Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Why would you lie about that? It's intellectually dishonest! lol

But it's okay. I judge you and understand your mind simply isn't capable of understanding, which makes me a much better person than you.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I don't even know why I'm trying to argue with this guy. He has that magical ability to take any legitimate point and override it in his head with the dogma he's been fed and has been regurgitating. It's all just "lies", or everything is a corrupt evil dishonest plot to make union leaders rich, or whatever. It's like trying to argue with somebody about their religion.

In reply to ThePhranc:

I can't tell if you're trolling everyone right now, or if you're serious.

Max_Archer wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: I don't even know why I'm trying to argue with this guy. He has that magical ability to take any legitimate point and override it in his head with the dogma he's been fed and has been regurgitating. It's all just "lies", or everything is a corrupt evil dishonest plot to make union leaders rich, or whatever. It's like trying to argue with somebody about their religion.

I know, obviously, I get sucked into it too. Stupid.

This thread is pointless. Kill it. Kill it with hot (linked) pie.

MG Bryan, he's serious. He'll admit it on the next page. Just wait.

Duke wrote: Do you know the definitions of "revenue", "profit", and "profit margin" - and how they differ from each other?

Yes, I do thanks. Lots of companies are also doing very well on their "profit margins" as well these days. Lots of companies are doing bad. My point is, there are plenty of CEO's being compensated more money per year than they can realistically do anything with, and yet still hammer away on the little guy.

Max_Archer wrote: Oh, now I'm a liar. Funny how you're the one who stands to benefit from discrediting unions and I get absolutely nothing by supporting them. Plenty of people work jobs at places like Walmart where they're getting screwed left and right every day and there's nothing they can do about it without getting fired. Where do you think benefits and overtime came from? Company owners just offered it out of the goodness of their hearts? If you treat your employees fairly, that's great. There are companies out there that do. It's not an issue with them. It's the companies that try and screw their employees at every turn that cause those employees to have to do something about it. When you're in a union industry, you join the union and the majority of jobs only employ union people. If you're not in the union, you can only get the lowest tier, worst paying, shortest employment jobs. You don't just walk in without the union on a big job and dictate your own terms. The company isn't even allowed to hire you under those circumstances. I don't know how he'd "hack it" on his own in those circumstances. Being a member of the union costs him nothing, provides tons of benefits, and the union is a non-profit lead by volunteers. By the way, don't think I'm clueless about large companies, either. I have family members and friends who own multi-billion dollar corporations. I'm well aware of how they run, how things happen at the top, and what their motivations are.

Yes, when regurgitate lies that makes you a liar. For some one who claims to know friends and family that own multi billion corps you might want to actually ask them about things because you haven't been right about much.

You said most of the people in your daddy's field were freelance. So what is it are they freelance or union?

Max_Archer wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: I don't even know why I'm trying to argue with this guy. He has that magical ability to take any legitimate point and override it in his head with the dogma he's been fed and has been regurgitating. It's all just "lies", or everything is a corrupt evil dishonest plot to make union leaders rich, or whatever. It's like trying to argue with somebody about their religion.

Well boy when you say things that aren't true its called lying. I like how you cry about dogmas yet spew the union line like a trained parrot. Also thank you for the dishonest strawman about how everything is evil. Whats even better is your doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

I've been in unions before so its not just dogma its called practical experience.