patrick.net

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.