Silly woman.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Doesn't she know she's not as important as her bosses? She should be lucky they deign to pay her at all!

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

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.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

they do it in a dishonst, and, offten, unlawful way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/union-busting-tactics_n_886203.html

and, re at will and organising, despite the fact that you can be fired at will for almst any reson?

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

"Unionization isn't good for employers."

Tell that to the 1890's.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Yes. Unionization isn't good for employers.

I am being completely serious here: who gives a flying fuck about the employers?

If I could run a business by paying children a penny a day in conditions with a ludicrously high attrition rate that was not responsible for compensating them for, that would be incredible for my bottom line.

If you can't run a business without shitting on your employees, you do not deserve to be in business. Capitalism will always find a way to make a buck when it's mandated that they take care of their workers.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I am being completely serious here: who gives a flying fuck about the employers?

I do. Investors do. Other employers do. If they're smart, employees do.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

That statement was said in the context of the rest of what I said in the comment. Please apply the context to the statement.

Again, the employers will adapt and survive (and, gasp, even make a profit) when they're held to standards that protect the employees. Investors and other employers would, again, be ecstatic if they had no duty to protect their employees. The bottom line would look great. The employees would not.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

My answer remains the same.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Then investors and employers either have shit for brains or are evil. Maybe both.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

by the choice of the employees.

citation needed!!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oooooh! I understand now.
When I say "citation needed" you think that just spewing more words that comee to your brain count.
Sorry Jeff, you are not a citation machine.

When I asked for a citation for your claim I didn't want you to simply say some more words that you happen to believe. I was asking for a citation to support your claim. In case you are going to try and weasle out by "forgetting" or not understanding:

You claimed that the majority of employees do not want to unionize and that THAT is why they don't have unions.
I require a CITATION to show that the majority of employees do not want unionization. Saying that they aren't in unions IS NOT a citation.

I know lots of people who'd like to be in unions but are afraid of losing their jobs if they start talking about it. So that's my anecdotal evidence--but I want a CITATION. Some sort of STUDY. Something to support the claim about "the majority of employees"

Again, the mind of Jeff is NOT a citation machine.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You claimed that the majority of employees do not want to unionize and that THAT is why they don't have unions.
I require a CITATION to show that the majority of employees do not want unionization. Saying that they aren't in unions IS NOT a citation.

I'm sorry you think that people want unions, but can't habe them. Private sector union membership is under 7% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). To believe that a majority of them want to be in a union but cannot be in a union defies any logic or even basic critical thought, especially when the law is tilted toward allowing them to be in a union.

I know lots of people who'd like to be in unions but are afraid of losing their jobs if they start talking about it.

That's illegal.

Again, the mind of Jeff is NOT a citation machine.

Well, use your mind and we can figure it out pretty quickly.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"That's illegal"

OMG! illegal actions! NOBODY EVER DOES THOSE AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!!

oh wait.
yes, they do.

So Jeff, please, keep it up, you are showing that you don't know WHAT THE FUCK A CITATION IS
Either that or you are unable to give one.

You should man the fuck up, admit you don't have a citation and that you are pulling shit out of the fucking air--OR provide the citation that makes you claim that.

And again, NO, that workers aren't in unions does not equal proof that they don't want them.


"Well, use your mind and we can figure it out pretty quickly"

This sounds like an admission that you don't have a citation.
Seriously, back your shit up or back the fuck down.
You are impressively obstinate.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So Jeff, please, keep it up, you are showing that you don't know WHAT THE FUCK A CITATION IS
Either that or you are unable to give one.

In that I'm unaware of any poll that asks "would you like to be in a union but cannot," then you may technically win that round. But it's because you choose to not use your head, not because the evidence isn't there.

Seriously, back your shit up or back the fuck down.
You are impressively obstinate.

I'm just surprised you think that there's this silent majority that would unionize if it wasn't for those oppressive employers willing to violate the law to keep them from doing so. This is misinformed occupy bullshit you're spouting, and has no relationship with the real world.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

So you don't have a citation for your claim.
You ought retract your claim or add a qualifier that acknowledge that this is your opinion, or your view, and is not established fact.

SINCE IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED FACT
It is merely how you VIEW IT.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I'm confident in its factual basis. That logic is required to understand it is not something I can solve.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Are you really trying to tell me you've never heard of a store shutting down because it was about to unionize?
Cause I am POSITIVE I can give you a citation for that.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

That's illegal.

Uh, no it isn't. At will. If anyone in my department starts talking about unionization, my boss can fire them immediately without reason. I mean, that's what At Will is for.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

No law can be tilted toward the workers when you have at-will employment.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except that at will employment doesn't supercede federal labor laws.