politicartoons | Silly woman.

Odd how that's the entirely opposite argument that the Wall St.-ers make about their million dollar bonuses.

In what way?

In that they have to get paid bonuses or else you're docking their pay.

You mean the contractually-obligated bonuses?

So you'd have a bigger issue with benefits being removed if they were "contractually-obligated'?

that can't be it. Jeff NEVER bows to authority. He told me so himself!

Yes, there's a difference between changing benefits and violating a contract.

So the lesson learned is that all employees and employers should have a contract set up to solidify expectations on both sides for payment and benefits.

If need be, that's not a terrible idea if you can get it.

for the union makes us strong....

The notion that benefits are not part of your wage/pay agreement... that they're a luxury that your employer can alter or deny you on a whim. That's the opposite of the Wall St-ers who defended receiving insane bonuses as a) their companies failed and were bailed out, and b) they were laying off the bottom rung of their company's payroll... they insisted their bonuses weren't, well, bonuses, but rather a previously agreed-upon part of their wages that couldn't/shouldn't be altered just because of present circumstances.

dude, those people are FAR more important. For one thing, they're much more likely to be men.

So, in other words, nothing like what we're talking about here at all.

BUT THERE IS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION FOR BONUSES.

NO CONTRACTS FOR BENEFITS HAW HAW

If only these people had some kind of organization that would allow them to unify their bargaining power collectively, to be able to negotiate with the employers on some kind of equal basis...

It's called the socialist party you communist sympathizer. >:(

ah, well, that explains it. My bad.

And the law weighs heavily in her favor to unionize if she can convince her co-workers to go along with it.

Judging by how unionization goes in the private sector, though...

you mean, like, the massive effort employers put in to stopping it?

apparntly, a macdollands manged to unionise once. it shut down in a week. a new one was opened, not very far away. every union employee was denyed a job, despite the fact they all had training

just one acdote, i know, but its part of a wider culter. magement is intesnly hostile to all unions. unions, not perfect, but what is, are very importent to righting the balance between employer and employee. and employer hates that, and fight tooth and nail aginst it the moment even a sniff of it is in the air.

and god help you if your in a fire at will state. i didnt even know there was such a thing. no reson, just fired. imagine trying to unionist in a state like that, and your found out. and the next day, boom, out of a job. in a country where 8 percent of the popultion is out of a job.

you mean, like, the massive effort employers put in to stopping it?

And rightfully so, but private sector unionization is almost completely nonexistent in non-manufacturing sectors by the choice of the employees.

and god help you if your in a fire at will state. i didnt even know there was such a thing. no reson, just fired. imagine trying to unionist in a state like that, and your found out. and the next day, boom, out of a job. in a country where 8 percent of the popultion is out of a job.

I like living in an at-will state. One of the few things Massachusetts does right.

and rightfuly so? rightguly so they put effort to in to stopping unionisation? some of the efforts they put in are fairly dishonste. the kind of thing a shitty boyfriend would do to stop you from leaving. pretending to listen, mabby doing something about one thing, and then, once the danger has passed, going back to exactly the kind of things they did befor. nothing changes.

and at will. 13 people got fired the other day for wereing organg shirts, becous the guy could just fire them. trying to orgnise a union, in a state where you could be fired at will, whilst trying to keep your job, would be terrfiying. they dont need a reson. trying to exerise your right in that case would be incredbly scary. and they dont need a reson. they just can. not safty.

remember, Jeff thinks they're better than us. And us includes him.

and rightfuly so? rightguly so they put effort to in to stopping unionisation?

Yes. Unionization isn't good for employers.

trying to exerise your right in that case would be incredbly scary. and they dont need a reson. they just can. not safty.

It wouldn't be scary, it just probably wouldn't be too fruitful.

(no subject)

red-pill.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 18:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

american-geist.livejournal.com - 2012-03-23 20:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lafinjack.livejournal.com - 2012-03-24 04:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-03-24 12:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lafinjack.livejournal.com - 2012-03-24 19:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-03-24 19:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lafinjack.livejournal.com - 2012-03-24 19:51 (UTC) - Expand

by the choice of the employees.

citation needed!!

The law is tilted toward allowing for unions. If you're not unionized, it's because you have not made strides to be unionized, or the majority of employees have chosen not to. We, unfortunately, do not have a system where employers can opt out of union cooperation.