Should work be able to dictate your life?

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

why do some professions "need" unions when others don't? I'm an electrical/computer engineer and I've never heard of a union for "engineers". If we don't think we are being compensated fairly, we quit and find someone who does. why can't this work for all professions?

regardless of the employer, if most of their workforce is quitting, in order to retain employees they must raise their compensation level or be forced to shut down because of their lack of employees.

That's the common sense approach.

Employee: "Can I have a raise?"

Business Owner: "Yes."

Employee: "Thank you!"

or

Employee: "Can I have a raise?"

Business Owner: "No."

Employee: "Thank you, I will be looking for work elsewhere."

Of course it can become more complex than that depending on both parties motivation to keep an employee/keep a job. At the end of the day it all comes down to communication and a yes or no answer.

With Unions it's --

Union: "Give us more money."

Business Owner: "No, make it worthwhile."

Union: "Okay, we're going on strike blackballing you to give in to our demands or you lose your business and we're all jobless."

I don't see what the great incentive is for the business owner to run a unionized business.

steveinaz

90% polled agree that work has no business in your personal business. Bravo! How anyone could find this crap acceptable is beyond my comprehension. Thanks for restoring my faith...

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

what stronger "stand" can you take than to refuse to work for an employer who you think is treating you unfairly?

...keeping your job and being heard, and quite possibly having an a-hole removed from the work place.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

90% polled agree that work has no business in your personal business. Bravo! How anyone could find this crap acceptable is beyond my comprehension. Thanks for restoring my faith...

Yeah, Steve, do you know how skewed your question is? All you affirmed is how jacked up polls are. Your question highlights the fallacy of polls. Had you asked: "Do you believe that business owners have the right to hire and fire based on the cost to their bottom line?" you would have received a much different answer.

The way you phrase it who is going to say 'Yes' without reading more than just the poll question?

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

...keeping your job and being heard, and quite possibly having an a-hole removed from the work place.

Ever think maybe the business can't afford the demand of the union? Then what? Everyone loses their job? Wow, what an awesome result. Unions just muscle their demands on the employer. What option do they have? None.

All you'd have to do with a **** of a boss is quit.

The free market works wonders, but hell everyone is entitled to somene elses cheddar.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

...keeping your job and being heard, and quite possibly having an a-hole removed from the work place.

and this can't be done without unions because....?

steveinaz

...because in the non-union world, if the Big Cheese don't like you, you're gone.

Anywho, this thread wasn't intended to be a "Unions, for or against" poll. I have no problem with non-union workers, I just think it's a risky way to go---personally if a union was available in my trade, I'd go union. The benefits are outstanding.

Furthermore, if all employers dealed with their employees fairly, and paid them a fair wage---you are right, there would be no need for unions. The fact of the matter is, in corporate America today we have the largest "spread" of pay ever between the CEO and the guy on the assembly line building that car. Why? Good ol GREED, that's where unions come in.

For instance, working for the Fed. We don't have a Union per se; we have a union representative, but we are not allowed to strike---by law. So, no we don't have a union in the traditional sense. BUT, we don't need a union. Uncle Sam pays good, gives good benefits and does a good job of protecting both supervisor and employee. If all companies were run this way, there would be no need.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

"Do you believe that business owners have the right to hire and fire based on the cost to their bottom line?"

...good lord, talk about a loaded question. That's the "politically correct" version of "Should companies be able to dictate your personal life." That's all.

You need to run for office, that was gooood.

That almost sounds like this: "Judge, I didn't murder the guy, per se; I was merely exercising my right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; he was negatively impacting my happiness."

Demiurge

You're not getting this. If the big cheese doesn't like you, why do you want to work from him? Moreover how are you entitled to work for him and get the money his company generates?

If the big cheese is a big dick, the big cheese will have no employees. Without employees the big cheese doesn't have a business. Big cheese becomes small fry.

You don't need unions to accomplish that.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

...good lord, talk about a loaded question. That's the "politically correct" version of "Should companies be able to dictate your personal life." That's all.

You need to run for office, that was gooood.

That almost sounds like this: "Judge, I didn't murder the guy, per se; I was merely exercising my right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; he was negatively impacting my happiness."

That's the direct result is in not?

"Should businesses be allowed to tell you if you can drink soda at home?"

Of course not. Are you turning into a chub that costs the business in health coverage over time?

If you don't go directly to the conclusion you're not being honest. You don't want to ask yourself why companies are doing these things and would rather look at them as being evil. Our slip & sue society is to blame for the reaction you're seeing in the business world.

I have a question for you to think over...

Suppose you have a heart attack while you're not at work. Your insurance, partially paid by your employer (at much cheaper rates than what you could negotiate on your own), still covers you, right?

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

...because in the non-union world, if the Big Cheese don't like you, you're gone.

but that's what so great about living here in the USofA. You don't have to work for the Big Cheese, you go work hard somplace else and become a Big Cheese yourself.

I don't know. I just don't like the self-entitlement/need for the government/employer/mommy&daddy/etc. to take care of me mentality. If people in the US became a little more innovative and a little less "dependent" I think we'd all be in a better place. There is so much opportunity available in the US... people are dying trying to get here (immigrants) and yet we still sit around and act like we have no chance of surviving if someone else isn't look out for our best interests.

bobman1235

bert26 wrote:

When was the last time any of you worked only 40 hours in a week?

When was the last time I actually worked a full 40-hour week is more like it.

Although if my boss peruses this board, then.... the answer is every week.... um... yeah.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

You're not getting this. If the big cheese doesn't like you, why do you want to work from him?

No, you're not "getting" it; I don't give a damn how the boss "feels" about me, I'm there to do a job to the best of my abilities, not win a popularity contest. I'm providing a service for a fee. I can't stand the boss I have right now---do I care? Hell no. Every 2 weeks a get a paycheck, and I'm very good at what I do. That's all the reassurance I need.

Shizelbs

If said Big Cheese can run his company by firing otherwise good employees simply at his whim and irrational discretion, best of luck to them. But I don't think they are going to be too successful at doing so.

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

but that's what so great about living here in the USofA. You don't have to work for the Big Cheese, you go work hard somplace else and become a Big Cheese yourself.

I don't know. I just don't like the self-entitlement/need for the government/employer/mommy&daddy/etc. to take care of me mentality. If people in the US became a little more innovative and a little less "dependent" I think we'd all be in a better place. There is so much opportunity available in the US... people are dying trying to get here (immigrants) and yet we still sit around and act like we have no chance of surviving if someone else isn't look out for our best interests.

Well, thats all well and good---but there aren't 300,000,000 executive level positions open currently, come on, man. You gotta have worker bees, they are the ones who actually perform the "work." Why not take care of them in a fair manner? Sheesh.

Demiurge

Shizelbs wrote:

If said Big Cheese can run his company by firing otherwise good employees simply at his whim and irrational discretion, best of luck to them. But I don't think they are going to be too successful at doing so.

EXACTLY!

steveinaz

Shizelbs wrote:

If said Big Cheese can run his company by firing otherwise good employees simply at his whim and irrational discretion, best of luck to them. But I don't think they are going to be too successful at doing so.

You'd be amazed how many people they can keep on board---it's a bad economy.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

Well, thats all well and good---but there aren't 300,000,000 executive level positions open currently, come on, man. You gotta have worker bees, they are the ones who actually perform the "work." Why not take care of them in a fair manner? Sheesh.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be taken care of in a fair manner. I'm saying its the free market that should keep things in check, not government legislation and unions. If a company treats their employees like crap, it will be reflected in their products and in their bottom line. It will also be reflected in the happiness of their employees--but each person is master of their own destiny and if they choose to continue to work there, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

No, you're not "getting" it; I don't give a damn how the boss "feels" about me, I'm there to do a job to the best of my abilities, not win a popularity contest. I'm providing a service for a fee. I can't stand the boss I have right now---do I care? Hell no. Every 2 weeks a get a paycheck, and I'm very good at what I do. That's all the reassurance I need.

Steve, with all due respect. You're not entitled to any job (without a contract), period. You're there because he hired you and wanted to pay you for your service. If he doesn't want you there for whatever reason (IMO) he should have the right to can your **** no questions asked.

I'm well aware of there being all sorts of laws for hiring and firing people. It doesn't make them right, just like smoking bans. Not to mention they can get rid of you for whatever reason they might want to make up. Most don't because they don't want to get sued.

Shizelbs statement above shows the result of a business owner's actions if he's being unfair. There are consequences for the employer without strongarming him. He probably knows the consequences better than the employee does, especially if they're just there to collect a paycheck.

Yep, I believe in capitalism through and through, even when it kicks me in the teeth.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

You'd be amazed how many people they can keep on board---it's a bad economy.

Its my insinuation that the two are exactly related. If you have a society full of people who blame others and the economy for their plight, the situation will only get worse.

steveinaz

I'm not saying they shouldn't be taken care of in a fair manner. I'm saying its the free market that should keep things in check, not government legislation and unions. If a company treats their employees like crap, it will be reflected in their products and in their bottom line. It will also be reflected in the happiness of their employees--but each person is master of their own destiny and if they choose to continue to work there, they have no one to blame but themselves.

In theory you are 100% correct, and I would agree in a perfect world. Unfortunately in the real world it doesn't work that way for most people. For any of a million reasons...

Some bosses still haven't figured out that happy employees make successful employees---of course you've always got your bad apples, no doubt. We have GS-15's upstairs that couldn't supervise a kindergardner successfully because the only thing they ever learned was "old age and treachery" tactics. A phrase we used to use in the Army for people who had to depend on their "rank" because they lacked any type of personal Charisma or natural leadership abilities/qualities.

Demiurge

Steve, just in case you missed it --

Suppose you have a heart attack while you're not at work. Your insurance, partially paid by your employer (at much cheaper rates than what you could negotiate on your own), still covers you, right?

I just want to know if you think it would be right if employers only paid for your **** ups and accidents on the job.

steveinaz

One final question.

This discussion is fair, healthy, and I'm always open to learning something new. But, how do these conversations have anything to do with employers telling you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home?

That was the original question of the poll.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

Steve, just in case you missed it --

Suppose you have a heart attack while you're not at work. Your insurance, partially paid by your employer (at much cheaper rates than what you could negotiate on your own), still covers you, right

Yes.

Demiurge wrote:

I just want to know if you think it would be right if employers only paid for your **** ups and accidents on the job.

No, it wouldn't be right. Health coverage is health coverage, not "work health" coverage. Some companies offer health coverage as a benefit (NOT a priviledge) to draw employees. Uncle Sam pays 70% of my premium for having the joy of having me around.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

One final question.

This discussion is fair, healthy, and I'm always open to learning something new. But, how do these conversations have anything to do with employers telling you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home?

That was the original question of the poll.

I need a third answer. I feel that Yes, that they legally can make outrageous demands, but No, I won't ever be caught working for someone who did.

steveinaz

Hoorah! That's what I'm looking for. I agree, I could have worded the poll better, but it's hard to cover the bases without watering down the subject too much with disclaimers.

Phantom, you & I get into it alot, but I do respect your opinions, I don't always understand or agree with them--but I am listening.

Same with Demi, he knows alot of things I don't, and sometimes what sounds like a challenge is me actually "fishing" for more information, and I'm sure he knows that as well...I'm sure in his position at work he is exposed to things that I am not exposed to, or have to deal with, so I try to pick his brain to get a feel for where he's coming from.

You know the "walk a mile in my shoes" kinda thing...

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

Yes.

No, it wouldn't be right. Health coverage is health coverage, not "work health" coverage. Some companies offer health coverage as a benefit (NOT a priviledge) to draw employees. Uncle Sam pays 70% of my premium for having the joy of having me around.

Interesting dichotomy you've created when it comes to the expectations you place on employers as opposed to employees.

I think I made my point as succinctly as I could in that regard. :cool:

Demiurge

steveinaz wrote:

Hoorah! That's what I'm looking for. I agree, I could have worded the poll better, but it's hard to cover the bases without watering down the subject too much with disclaimers.

Phantom, you & I get into it alot, but I do respect your opinions, I don't always understand or agree with them--but I am listening.

Same with Demi, he knows alot of things I don't, and sometimes what sounds like a challenge is me actually "fishing" for more information, and I'm sure he knows that as well...

Don't worry, you're one of my favoites around here.

Discussions are always fun so long as someone isn't calling you a **** for disagreeing! The internet is a bad place for arguing anyhow. I think we can always make a more understandable argument when talking.

We could talk for hours over this subject, but who is going to read any of it?

steveinaz

Hey, they're in other forums talking about stereo's and we're over here solving world issues...who cares if they read it?

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

Hoorah! That's what I'm looking for. I agree, I could have worded the poll better, but it's hard to cover the bases without watering down the subject too much with disclaimers.

Phantom, you & I get into it alot, but I do respect your opinions, I don't always understand or agree with them--but I am listening.

Same with Demi, he knows alot of things I don't, and sometimes what sounds like a challenge is me actually "fishing" for more information, and I'm sure he knows that as well...I'm sure in his position at work he is exposed to things that I am not exposed to, or have to deal with, so I try to pick his brain to get a feel for where he's coming from.

You know the "walk a mile in my shoes" kinda thing...

agreed, I enjoy the discussions on this forum. I don't see it simply as a springboard to bounce my own opinions, but as a place to see others' points of view and think about things in a different way. If everyone was of the same mind as me I don't think I would come here very often. Likewise, if I couldn't find intelligent discussion.