patrick.net

tatupu70 says

The workers are the ones who actually make the product. You don't think they should enjoy the fruits of their labor?? Why is taking risk with money worth more than labor?

Sorry but a worker is just a worker taking orders just like a soldier. The Leadership, the owners, are the one staking risk because they're putting up their own money, sometimes everything they have. A business isn't about moral it's about making sense. When you conflict moral issues with business sense you'll likely to go out of business or get screwed at some point.

tatupu70 says

'm tired of this argument. Unions fight for as much $$ and benefits as they can get. Just like I do when I negotiate my compensation. If the management gives them (or me) too much, is that the unions (or my) fault??? Unions don't set their own pay--it's a two way street.

Yes, it is unions fault because they place tax payers and sometimes the government at risk or hold them hostage. Now for your private union, I am sure it's different I am sure your boss or the owner may increase your wage because they find your worthy not because your union says so. But for the public system which is where the majority of the unions are held in this country, it's a different animal and why the states, cities, and counties are at war with their employees and their unions. Some of them are trying to get pensions for current retirees and future retirees reformed. As it's the only way to save their government and keeping their tax payers from being held hostage.

tatupu70 says

but IMO the problem lies with the boards that are elected to oversee and negotiate their budgets.

I can understand and agree with everything you say except for this part. Yeah it's true some of the board members are overseas. But you have to understand these board members are only out to do what make business sense. If it means moving a plant over seas to create more profits they will. And you can't blame them because once again they're using their own money to invest or take risk into the business. A worker isn't.

But a huge part of why they make those decisions are based on government regulation and laws. Unions are part of the problem but not nearly as much as those and other stuff that I wouldn't exactly get into as it's a bit complicated.

everything says

Lol, people here think the politicians are controlled by unions, really they are controlled by corporations who in turn will pay you dirt. These days you have to negotiate for yourself, since, it's everyone for themselves.

It works both ways actually. SEIU one of the largest unions in CA donates a lot of money to politicians mostly democratseverything says

And, lol, wait until they start cutting costs, it's already so evident as many conditions are not treated, as they are not profitable until the condition worsens.

It's funny the state has cut costs in a lot of departments. At one point we scaled back so much that we didn't have a janitor to clean the building and bathrooms, some of us employees had to clean our own bathrooms with a few of us buying the cleaning supplies with our own money since we weren't even provided with that. Not to mention for over a eyar we had a leaky roof that caused the ceiling to cave in once in awhile which also built up some mold. It actually go so bad once that a co-worker called OSHEA and they actually investigated our area and our department was fined but I think it was fine about $40,000 its not a lot but needless to say the complaint did work as the department quickly fixed the issues.

I guess it was more of a warning by OSHEA to get them fixed otherwise they would hit harder with a much bigger fine.

spydah_hh says

Sorry but a worker is just a worker taking orders just like a soldier

Not anywhere that I've ever worked. Usually the guys who do the work know MUCH more than the bosses.

spydah_hh says

The Leadership, the owners, are the one staking risk because they're putting up
their own money, sometimes everything they have.

So what? They get to sit back doing nothing and get paid. Why is taking a risk with your money worth more than physical labor? Give me one reason. It has nothing to do with morals--give me one business reason why one should earn more because they risk money as opposed to physical labor?

spydah_hh says

Now for your private union, I am sure it's different I am sure your boss or the
owner may increase your wage because they find your worthy not because your
union says so.

Now you're being naïve. People don't get raises because they're worthy. They get raises because the boss is afraid they'll leave and go somewhere else. It's all about leverage. And THAT'S why unions are good--it evens out the negotiating power between owners and workers.

spydah_hh says

I can understand and agree with everything you say except for this part

I'm talking about school boards, fire district boards, etc.

tatupu70 says

So what? They get to sit back doing nothing and get paid. Why is taking a risk with your money worth more than physical labor? Give me one reason. It has nothing to do with morals--give me one business reason why one should earn more because they risk money as opposed to physical labor?

Sit back? Sure if you're a CEO or a stock/bond holder that maybe true but still they're putting up the risk with their own money not the worker. Also if the worker feels he knows more than his boss or the owner than why doesn't he just start his own business and hire people? In fact why don't you start one? If you started a company you going put workers before profits? I think not. You going to ask your workers to chip in on the risk? They're not. Why? because they don't want to front the risk of losing money. Which is why they or even you won't start a business because in reality most start up businesses fail.

A prime example... A little after my dad retired from his private company, the company was beginning to struggle and they needed to cut costs. So they asked their workers to take one day furlough each week otherwise if they didn't they would have to lay off 10 people. What did the majority of the workers do? They went to work and the company (being unionized too) laid off the workers with the lowest seniority. Which made sense for the workers who had high seniority to continue to work because they knew that layoffs were going to be by seniority anyway. Needless to say the majority of the workers didn't want to risk losing their money since they were paid by the hour. So the owners had to make a tough decision and layoff workers.

Hell in battle or in war, most of the time commanders, generals or even the kings or president don't fight their own battles. Yet their' rewarded for winning battles even though their soldiers did all the work.

tatupu70 says

Now you're being naïve. People don't get raises because they're worthy. They get raises because the boss is afraid they'll leave and go somewhere else. It's all about leverage. And THAT'S why unions are good--it evens out the negotiating power between owners and workers.

Umm, if a boss is afraid of a good a worker leaving then that means the boss thinks the worker is worthy of the rise, don't you think? You ask me for a rise but I know you've done a poor job overall since you've been working here. I am not going to give you a raise because you suck and I wouldn't cared if you left because I know your work habits. Now if you were good and made an impact to my business big or small i am going to keep you according to what I think you're worth. The union is just a middle man, don't really need them to negotiate because if you thought the offer I was giving you was too low and thought you could get a better offer somewhere else, you'd quit and look for a better paying job. It's really that simple. I mean really a prime and easy example of this is the sports industry.

marcus says

Not sure whether you can get it, but just because the pension underfunding was out of hand at the end before bankruptcy, doesn't mean that too high pension costs were the real problem.

When city employees people can retire in their 50's, or earlier, then by definition the pension costs were too high to begin with. No private company does this.

Homeboy says

I think you're just flailing because I caught you in a lie and PROVED it by citing a reliable news article.

You are the one flailing because the quote you provided stated that the pension was being switched to defined contribution when you said that that the pension was being taken away.

Homeboy says

Or put another way, Boeing decided it was cheaper to export jobs after they tried to take away the workers' pension and failed.

Homeboy says

including significant changes in retirement benefits and the end of the defined-benefit pension. Accruals for the pension would cease at that time and would shift to a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan.

Changing something and removing it are two different things.

That and that is how these things are normally done in that new employees will only have 401K's and existing employees get to keep their defined benefit plan AND will have a 401K. It's just that their existing defined benefit plans will stop accruing benefits. So nothing is actually being taken away from anyone. You simply don't understand how pensions work in the private sector. I got the exact same deal from Wells Fargo when they "did away with" their defined benefit pension plan.

spydah_hh says

Sit back? Sure if you're a CEO or a stock/bond holder that maybe true but still
they're putting up the risk with their own money not the worker

Well, that's what we're talking about here, right? Owners? The ones "taking the risk?"

spydah_hh says

A prime example... A little after my dad retired from his private company, the
company was beginning to struggle and they needed to cut costs. So they asked
their workers to take one day furlough each week otherwise if they didn't they
would have to lay off 10 people. What did the majority of the workers do? They
went to work and the company (being unionized too) laid off the workers with the
lowest seniority.

So tell me again how the owners are taking more risk?? They are getting their profits and the workers are getting laid off. The worker who can be laid off at any time for any reason is not taking a risk? The owner doesn't lose until all after all his workers have lost.

spydah_hh says

Umm, if a boss is afraid of a good a worker leaving then that means the boss
thinks the worker is worthy of the rise, don't you think?

Yes, but the worker isn't getting the raise because he's good. He's getting it because he has the leverage. If the worker is good but the owner knows he won't leave (family issues, whatever), then he's much less likely to get the same raise. You aren't paid what you are worth. You are paid the MINIMUM that the company thinks will retain you. It's all about leverage. That's why unions are necessary. Right now, with fewer jobs than people, owners have the leverage.

tatupu70 says

Well, that's what we're talking about here, right? Owners? The ones "taking the risk?"

Yes owners or stock holders.

tatupu70 says

So tell me again how the owners are taking more risk?? They are getting their profits and the workers are getting laid off. The worker who can be laid off at any time for any reason is not taking a risk? The owner doesn't lose until all after all his workers have lost.

How owners take more risk? Well first off they have to start up the business which means they need acquire capital which comes from their own money or assets. Then they have to pay for licenses, fees, registrations and etc. Then they can hire workers but usually if they're starting small the owner(s) are the workers. They don't hire workers unless they need to expand to meet demand.

So you see all this has to being first, because all businesses start small even the big mega corps started small. And the truth is most starting businesses fail within 3 years of opening. And if they fail the owners have a lot more to lose than workers.

tatupu70 says

Yes, but the worker isn't getting the raise because he's good. He's getting it because he has the leverage. If the worker is good but the owner knows he won't leave (family issues, whatever), then he's much less likely to get the same raise. You aren't paid what you are worth. You are paid the MINIMUM that the company thinks will retain you. It's all about leverage. That's why unions are necessary. Right now, with fewer jobs than people, owners have the leverage.

You're right... And you're right right now there are fewer jobs.. This is why employers can't literally dump on their employees because there so much employee competition that it's easy to replace even the best worker. Employeers get hundreds of applications everyday which means more options. But you know what the real problem is?

The real problem lies in the government. With their regulations and loose money policies it is very hard for a new business to begin. Without new businesses forming we don't get new jobs, well not very many at least. our economy is being held by Oligoploies and the reason why they stay at the top is because of what I said before in my previous post government assistance (a.k.a, bail outs, subsidies, and regulations).

Back in 1860 - 1920s there were jobs left and right. I watched a documentary called from rags to richest to rags. Back then people could quit a job and find another job within 1 hour. Back then the workers had more control of who and where they wish to work for, back then workers were getting paid a lot more in terms of purchasing power than we are. Back then the family consisted of the mother staying home with 3-6 children while the father worked and provided for everyone. We lost all that and our employee bargaining (without unions) due to bad government policies that caused use to lose capitalism and freedom and form into a corny capitalist oligarchy government.

What's sad is most people don't realize that his is the main problem. Fix the government, make it smaller and go back to our original roots we'll have a thriving economy with outstanding innovation that will benefit everyone, the workers, the communities and even owners.