Duke
UberDork
4/26/12 2:08 p.m.
Max_Archer wrote:
Where do you think benefits and overtime came from? Company owners just offered it out of the goodness of their hearts?
I'm a professional and as such there is NO professional union whatsoever in my industry, of course. Yet, magically, I have benefits. It's not uncommon, even in my field, which is notorious for using entry-level workers fairly ruthlessly.
My wife is a professional (and therefore non-union) who works for a giant multinational conglomerate corporation that I know you've heard of - and yet, magically, SHE has benefits, and good ones at that. Good enough that it actually works out for our family to be on her health insurance plan, and I get reimbursed by my (much smaller) employer for what it costs me to buy benefits through her. But I would still have health insurance if that wasn't possible - despite no union representation.
Both of us make decent salaries. Both of us could be easily replaced in today's job market. Yet, MAGICALLY, neither of us has been fired and replaced by people who will work more cheaply than we do. Amazing that should be the case without a union there to take a cut of my pay and negotiate me out of a viable job.
It's true, neither of us makes overtime, despite the fact that we both put the time in. That's the downside of being a salaried worker instead of an hourly worker. It's also pretty much common across the entire white collar employment universe.
I like a nice Peach & Blueberry pie.
ThePhranc wrote:
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?
They're freelance and in a union. They're hired for individual projects, and then move on to whatever the next project they get is, without staying at the same company. The employer pays the employees' union dues while they are employed and the union provides the employes with legal protection, enforces policies, runs the health care program and several physical medical facilities that serve its members, runs various awards shows for the professions it represents, and, for some people, provides pensions and runs retirement homes.
In reply to ThePhranc:
I knew you were going to say that. But I undersand why you did. I understood it before you even knew what you were going to say. I'm three steps ahead of you.
A ridiculous thread was previously derailed this way:
In reply to MG Bryan:
I knew you would post that.
Bacon pie. You did NOT see that coming.
In reply to what ThePhranc is about to say:
I think that explains it.
Duke wrote:
Max_Archer wrote:
Where do you think benefits and overtime came from? Company owners just offered it out of the goodness of their hearts?
I'm a professional and as such there is NO professional union whatsoever in my industry, of course. Yet, magically, I have benefits. It's not uncommon, even in my field, which is notorious for using entry-level workers fairly ruthlessly.
My wife is a professional (and therefore non-union) who works for a giant multinational conglomerate corporation that I know you've heard of - and yet, magically, SHE has benefits, and good ones at that. Good enough that it actually works out for our family to be on her health insurance plan, and I get reimbursed by my (much smaller) employer for what it costs me to buy benefits through her. But I would still have health insurance if that wasn't possible - despite no union representation.
Both of us make decent salaries. Both of us could be easily replaced in today's job market. Yet, MAGICALLY, neither of us has been fired and replaced by people who will work more cheaply than we do. Amazing that should be the case without a union there to take a cut of my pay and negotiate me out of a viable job.
It's true, neither of us makes overtime, despite the fact that we both put the time in. That's the downside of being a salaried worker instead of an hourly worker. It's also pretty much common across the entire white collar employment universe.
I said that there are companies who don't screw their employees. There's no reason for there to be unions when the employers are treating their employees well.
However, unions were instrumental in instituting those things in the first place, and even if there isn't an active union, the concept that employees could unionize if necessary is still a factor even in companies that don't have them. What would happen if your company suddenly announced that effective immediately, everybody was losing their benefits and taking a sizeable pay cut?
There's no union for what I do either, and no way that one would really make sense. I've been jerked around pretty badly by clients and there's basically nothing I can do about it. In the past, I've had normal jobs at companies that screwed me and other employees over, too, because they knew that our damages were nowhere near enough to make the legal battle worth it (and in the cases of most of my employees, they didn't even really know their employment rights). I had one job that made me work eleven eight hour days in a row, the sixth of which I was supposed to have off and was only informed the night before that I HAD to come into work, refused to pay me overtime, and then fired me when I argued with my manager about it. A union would've been really nice right about then.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
In reply to MG Bryan:
I knew you would post that.
Bacon pie. You did NOT see that coming.
I'm sorry. :( Was it intellectually dishonest?
MG Bryan wrote:
I'm sorry. :( Was it intellectually dishonest?
Yes, and it takes no responsability for it's own actions.
Duke wrote:
I'm a professional and as such there is NO professional union whatsoever in my industry, of course. Yet, magically, I have benefits. It's not uncommon, even in my field, which is notorious for using entry-level workers fairly ruthlessly.
As a professional, you have access to resources that typical blue collar workers may not. Also, surprisingly enough, as a professional, you may have skills that are irreplaceable, which is typically different from a blue collar worker. But you know that.
I like your focus on "benefits". That's reallllly not the point of this discussion. For instance, up here in the great white North, getting hired on full-time almost ANYWHERE includes benefits, union or not. It's just the way it is. Same with being a professional down in the US (or anywhere), you get benefits because that is the way it is. To use this as a reason to NOT need unions is hilarious, especially considering you don't belong to one.
I dislike unions greatly for a lot of the reasons stated, but I see the purpose they serve and they HAVE helped me before. I'd also like to think I am a talented individual that is in demand, so I typically have been able to be choosy with who I work for. Sometimes, it's just not that simple for some. I also feel that a lot of people forget just how unruly an organization of any kind gets when it has grown so large (see teacher's and auto worker's unions), it's no different than government.
Finally, again, in respect to up here, union employees always get paid less than their equivalent private sector counterpart. However, it is typically made up with other perks, so if money is not your be all end all, it can be worth it. As others have said, it is NOT unions that are hurting companies.
I'm told by SWMBO's boss's tax guy that if they give her full time hours every week, they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to start offering her benefits. So here, at least.... it's not "just the way it is." It's "The law."
HiTempguy wrote:
As others have said, it is NOT unions that are hurting companies.
See, you don't understand. If you don't own a company, you can't have an opinion. You're experientially disenfranchised.* But it's okay, I understand why you do it.
*Cool, I just googled that. Zero results. Going to (TM) that one.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
I'm told by SWMBO's boss's tax guy that if they give her full time hours every week, they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to start offering her benefits. So here, at least.... it's not "just the way it is." It's "The law."
If they offer benefits to full time employees, they have to give them to all full time employees (I think). If they're using a bunch of part-time employees to cover what needs to be a full time position they're being lame and skirting the law. Legal? Probably, though I believe if you work enough hours for long enough there may be some legal recourse for not being employed full time. Lame? Yes.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
I'm told by SWMBO's boss's tax guy that if they give her full time hours every week, they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to start offering her benefits. So here, at least.... it's not "just the way it is." It's "The law."
If they offer benefits to full time employees, they have to give them to all full time employees. If they're using a bunch of part-time employees to cover what needs to be a full time position they're being lame and skirting the law. Legal? Probably, though I believe if you work enough hours for long enough there may be some legal recourse for not being employed full time. Lame? Yes.
Right. That's why they have to legally give her benefits if she works 40 hours a week for a certain amount of weeks consecutively. They have full time benefits, and once she hits that number, she's included. They trim it back every few weeks to keep her from becoming eligible.
She's been averaging about 38 hours a week for the last almost 2 years. I'm reasonably sure that it's already illegal since in this state 32 hours a week can be legally considered full time, and she hasn't had benefits offered.
However, we figured out that it makes more financial sense to NOT press the issue with the possibility that they might just cut her hours back to... 31 to avoid it, and continue insuring her under my policy through my employer.
It's E36 M3ty, but that's the game we play.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Nah, they'll make her full time just as soon as they can and offer benefits too. It's just 'cause they care about you and your family more than they care about the bottom line.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Nah, they'll make her full time just as soon as they can and offer benefits too. It's just 'cause they care about you and your family more than they care about the bottom line.
I would prefer they don't, because Obamacare i think has some sort of clause in there that would require her to take the coverage through her employer. And their coverage is:
1) E36 M3ty.
2) Expensive.
3) E36 M3ty.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
I'm told by SWMBO's boss's tax guy that if they give her full time hours every week, they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to start offering her benefits. So here, at least.... it's not "just the way it is." It's "The law."
If they offer benefits to full time employees, they have to give them to all full time employees. If they're using a bunch of part-time employees to cover what needs to be a full time position they're being lame and skirting the law. Legal? Probably, though I believe if you work enough hours for long enough there may be some legal recourse for not being employed full time. Lame? Yes.
Right. That's why they have to legally give her benefits if she works 40 hours a week for a certain amount of weeks consecutively. They have full time benefits, and once she hits that number, she's included. They trim it back every few weeks to keep her from becoming eligible.
She's been averaging about 38 hours a week for the last almost 2 years. I'm reasonably sure that it's already illegal since in this state 32 hours a week can be legally considered full time, and she hasn't had benefits offered.
However, we figured out that it makes more financial sense to NOT press the issue with the possibility that they might just cut her hours back to... 31 to avoid it, and continue insuring her under my policy through my employer.
It's E36 M3ty, but that's the game we play.
ok.. back again (guess I never left) this brings up something that happened here a year or so ago. As a casual theatre tech.. we work on demand. One of my fellow techs averaged 40+ hours a week for months. The State stepped in and made Harrahs Atlantic City hire him as a full time employee and give him benefits.
They brought him in on wed and made him a fulltimer.. Thursday, they laid him off.
Last fall, they did it again, they took the 4 employees who have been averaging full time hours and offered them full time status. However, their hours were not guarenteed, and if their hours fell below 32 hours on any week, they had to pay for their benefits for that week. Only one of them took up on the offer.. he gets 30 hours a week.
Now for those that do not know.. Casual employees make more than full time hourly employees.. substantially more. The idea is that it hurts the employer to use them too much.. to the point that it is cheaper to make them into full time employees.. so the guy who took them up on the offer makes less an hour as the other casual employees.. and because they keep him under the 32hour threshold.. he has to pay his own benefits
Harrahs Atlantic City does not have a Union Theatre.. so there is nothing he or any of us can do about it. In the industry we call it the "golden handcuffs" nobody will pay us as much as we make here.. but they get to jerk us around as much as they want because they know we can't afford to leave
Max_Archer wrote:
ThePhranc wrote:
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?
They're freelance and in a union. They're hired for individual projects, and then move on to whatever the next project they get is, without staying at the same company. The employer pays the employees' union dues while they are employed and the union provides the employes with legal protection, enforces policies, runs the health care program and several physical medical facilities that serve its members, runs various awards shows for the professions it represents, and, for some people, provides pensions and runs retirement homes.
Then they aren't actually freelance.
US steel is a poor example. If you know the history, Carnegie was hostile towards his workers (he preferred low wages) and it was until the middle of the 20th century that the unions were able to work with the company (after an outsider was brought in to run the mills who was not totally against worker's unions)
In fact.. US Steel and it's Unions worked hard to keep US Steel afloat against cheap imported steel, including modifying their contracts to allow the company to be flexible and able to react quickly to changing trends and prices.
All that ended in 1984.. where after years of dropping orders, US Steel locked out it's workers and shuttering several of it's mills.
Also, if you read your history.. US Steel had a contentious relationship with the US Government who stopped it on several occasions from buying out other companies. It is also one of the top polluting companies in the US.
US Steel is a poor example for anything except how NOT to run a company. Like so many huge corporations that grow too large to be easily managed, it stayed in business inspite of itself
Salanis
PowerDork
4/26/12 5:53 p.m.
If the difficulties this country faced were simple ones with simple answers, we'd have solved them by now.
Salanis wrote:
If the difficulties this country faced were simple ones with simple answers, we'd have solved them by now.
Never have true words been spoken except maybe "sex is fun" or "beer is good".
