The compassion of others..do they know she makes 100k???????

[It will be fine]

That first sentence is the exact reason unions exist. I can reverse the second sentence to make the same point (just substitute worker for teamster). Just look at the past for what length corporate will go to justify making profit. All the worn out arguments can be rehashed, but profit will not be made without a productive worker. You think you can accomplish that without taking the employee's livelihood in mind, the wheel will continue to spin.

Corporations need to offer competitive compensation in their labor market. The labor market is determined by workers that can make their own decisions about their livelihoods. Unions take as much as possible while causing what often times turns out to be crippling harm to the corporation. How many companies that were represented by teamsters are now bankrupt and their retired workers draining the central states pension fund? How are workers benefited by the union destroying the companies they work for?

 

[tourists24]

Corporations need to offer competitive compensation in their labor market. The labor market is determined by workers that can make their own decisions about their livelihoods. Unions take as much as possible while causing what often times turns out to be crippling harm to the corporation. How many companies that were represented by teamsters are now bankrupt and their retired workers draining the central states pension fund? How are workers benefited by the union destroying the companies they work for?

And again,,,, that wheel will continue to spin. Under your format, there is no pension to fight for at all. You can turn this around all you want to make unions look bad, but without them there would be zero protection. Which is after all, ok by you because profit is all that's important

 

[It will be fine]

And again,,,, that wheel will continue to spin. Under your format, there is no pension to fight for at all. You can turn this around all you want to make unions look bad, but without them there would be zero protection. Which is after all, ok by you because profit is all that's important

Bad workers need protection, good workers move freely through the labor market and command better compensation. There is no spinning wheel, government regulations have taken care of enough worker protections. Unions currently cause more harm than good.

 

[tourists24]

Bad workers need protection, good workers move freely through the labor market and command better compensation. There is no spinning wheel, government regulations have taken care of enough worker protections. Unions currently cause more harm than good.

In your world,,,, absolutely

 

[MAKAVELI]

Bad workers need protection, good workers move freely through the labor market and command better compensation. There is no spinning wheel, government regulations have taken care of enough worker protections. Unions currently cause more harm than good.

All workers, good and bad need protections. Those government protections would have never came to fruition without unions.

 

[It will be fine]

All workers, good and bad need protections. Those government protections would have never came to fruition without unions.

Not really, good workers can move to better employment. Bad workers are the ones that need protections, bad workers benefit the most from unions. Companies whose workforce is comprised of bad protected workers will have a difficult time competing. That’s why they go out of business. That’s why union membership is on such a precipitous decline.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Not really, good workers can move to better employment. Bad workers are the ones that need protections, bad workers benefit the most from unions. Companies whose workforce is comprised of bad protected workers will have a difficult time competing. That’s why they go out of business. That’s why union membership is on such a precipitous decline.

It's funny someone who claims to be a democrat so anti worker and pro corporate.

 

[dezguy]

Bad workers need protection, good workers move freely through the labor market and command better compensation. There is no spinning wheel, government regulations have taken care of enough worker protections. Unions currently cause more harm than good.

I have seen the protections government regulations offer in my own city when companies tell employees either you take a 30% pay cut or lose your job.

The employee has the option of seeing their pay cheque shrink considerably or try to find a job in a depressed area.

Aside from some safety improvements, the government offers little protection to employees.

 

[It will be fine]

I have seen the protections government regulations offer in my own city when companies tell employees either you take a 30% pay cut or lose your job.

The employee has the option of seeing their pay cheque shrink considerably or try to find a job in a depressed area.

Aside from some safety improvements, the government offers little protection to employees.

Would the workers be better off if the company closed? Is 70% of pay better than 0?

 

[It will be fine]

It's funny someone who claims to be a democrat so anti worker and pro corporate.

I’m a liberal not a democrat.

 

[dezguy]

Would the workers be better off if the company closed? Is 70% of pay better than 0?

How is the company dictating the employee have their income slashed and the government doing nothing about it, considered protections that negate the need for unions?

Funny how all three levels of government did nothing but extend condolences to those affected.

 

[Nolimitz]

Corporations need to offer competitive compensation in their labor market. The labor market is determined by workers that can make their own decisions about their livelihoods. Unions take as much as possible while causing what often times turns out to be crippling harm to the corporation. How many companies that were represented by teamsters are now bankrupt and their retired workers draining the central states pension fund? How are workers benefited by the union destroying the companies they work for?

says the McD franchise owner

 

[It will be fine]

How is the company dictating the employee have their income slashed and the government doing nothing about it, considered protections that negate the need for unions?

Funny how all three levels of government did nothing but extend condolences to those affected.

What should the government do? Were workers forced to continue to work for this company? Would the company have closed without the pay cuts? I don’t know what you’re trying to argue. Companies offer compensation, if workers don’t like the offer they are free to find work elsewhere. If they aren’t able or willing to they can accept the offer. I don’t see a situation, that has happened many times in recent memory, where a union doesn’t accept a pay cut and the company just closes a factory or declares bankruptcy as a “win” for workers.

 

[Northbaypkg]

Who said I despise the union? I said I would hate to work alongside union workers. You view your employer as an entity that owes you something. I see things as employees need to earn their compensation. It’s a fundamental difference of viewpoint.

I view my employer as an entity that needs to abide by our contract, that's it. I'm not sure what you read that I posted that suggests I feel I'm entitled to more than that.

You write this as if UPS rolls out a red carpet for prospective couriers begging them NOT to go to FedEx.

The personal experiences of myself, and many co-workers I have known over many years could not be more the opposite. Applying at UPS, even when they were advertising for workers, has been akin to an unwashed transient propositioning a billionaire supermodel for a gang-bang behind an overflowing dumpster.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If you're saying it's hard to get hired on by UPS then uh, I don't know what to tell you. As everyone here has agreed, it's an entry level job that basically just requires you to have working limbs and a heartbeat. And I didn't say anything close to them begging people not to go to FedEx and come to UPS. Did you even read my post?

Reality dictates that he only needs to pay for drivers that are 'good enough.' And the bar gets lower every year.

In less than twenty ears, a person reflecting on his experiences and compensation having driven for both FedEx Ground and UPS will be in the curious and ridiculous position of being unable to decide which is worse.

So you're saying that in 20 years or less, UPS drivers will be compensated as poorly as FedEx ground drivers? I mean I hope not, but I'm not a fortune teller like you apparently are.

 

[tourists24]

I view my employer as an entity that needs to abide by our contract, that's it. I'm not sure what you read that I posted that suggests I feel I'm entitled to more than th.


I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If you're saying it's hard to get hired on by UPS then uh, I don't know what to tell you. As everyone here has agreed, it's an entry level job that basically just requires you to have working limbs and a heartbeat. And I didn't say anything close to them begging people not to go to FedEx and come to UPS. Did you even read my post?



So you're saying that in 20 years or less, UPS drivers will be compensated as poorly as FedEx ground drivers? I mean I hope not, but I'm not a fortune teller like you apparently are.

It’s all irrelevant to him. Profits is all that matters in the end

 

[vantexan]

I’m a liberal not a democrat.

It's funny someone who claims to be a liberal is so anti worker, so pro corporate.

 

[dezguy]

What should the government do? Were workers forced to continue to work for this company? Would the company have closed without the pay cuts? I don’t know what you’re trying to argue. Companies offer compensation, if workers don’t like the offer they are free to find work elsewhere. If they aren’t able or willing to they can accept the offer. I don’t see a situation, that has happened many times in recent memory, where a union doesn’t accept a pay cut and the company just closes a factory or declares bankruptcy as a “win” for workers.

The company had agreed to pay their workers a wage, then turned around and said "just kidding, you're going to take less or you're fired." The company used a recession as an excuse to keep more money despite, by all accounts, the company being in good shape.

You claim unions are no longer needed because of the protections provided by governments. Is there any legislation in your state preventing you from slashing your employees income?

Wrongful termination cases are generally a joke, in my province. One may win a wrongful termination case but nothing prevents the company from targeting individuals, in the long run. I know of people who have been wrongfully terminated, the labour board agrees they have been wrongfully terminated but recommend the employee move on because the company will eventually fire the employee anyways or make their lives miserable so they quit.

You're arguing against the need of unions because government protections are enough. I'm giving you examples of why they're still needed.

 

[Northbaypkg]

It’s all irrelevant to him. Profits is all that matters in the end

With every post he shows this more and more. I'd say he reminds me of the boss from National Lampoon's Christmas vacation who slashed bonuses in favor of a year long jelly of the month subscription, but I don't think he'd even spring for that for his guys.

 

[tourists24]

Would the workers be better off if the company closed? Is 70% of pay better than 0?

Yep. These things happen. And you blame the worker for lack of compromising. If you don’t comply completely, there’s no other way at all. Profit is everything. Like I said, the wheel keeps spinning

 

[It will be fine]

It’s all irrelevant to him. Profits is all that matters in the end

What else should motivate a corporation? Why would anyone expect an employer to care about their employees? Do you believe your workplace is your family? Do you think your employer exists for charity?