I'm impressed with him (Prometheus), far more than you will ever know.
He represents the points that I live by----standing on one's own two feet, accomplishing missions without holding others hostage--and rightfully claiming that which he has earned. Union people will never understand that concept------for they represent a gathering of inept, incompetent people that have done their level best to avoid all of the above, yet demand the rewards of those that have been contributing members to society. Sadly, in the union, many must gather to speak with a ME ME ME MY MY MY voice. I see no difference, aside from one side earning the right, with the other stealing the privilege.
I have two pennies to throw into the pot, and a confession to make.
I have been on union jobs where I did a good job. Then there showed up people who got paid as much as me and did half the work. The company liked them more because instead of charging for 8 hours of my work, they could send two guys to do the same thing for 8 hours.
So, what do I do? First, I slow down so as not to ire the other members who will drop a 4x on my head at first opportunity. Then I match my performance with theirs, even enjoying the time off. (Working three hours out of eight instead of eight out of eight.)
In a union situation, the good never bring up the bad to their level. The bad always bring the others down. And the unions support it because they have more people on the rolls paying dues.
Old union joke?
How many union members does it take to build a house?
Who gives a f*ck? You got a problem with that?
Steve, who's gladly retired and permanently disabled due to an ignorant cocksucking union member mentality worker.
The trick is not trying to pick too big of a fight. Some idiots at Armco Steel announced they were going to stop the slag train and kill the crew. the state put armed officers aboard the train, with orders of shoot to kill, if necessary. they dumb asses tried to stop the train by sitting in lawn chairs across the track. They barely made it off the track in time.
The union at Cincinnati Electronics elected a new president, and the next day she declared that she was going to bring the company to its knees. She told me that if i reported for work, they would pull me out of my truck and beat me to death. I thanked her for the warning and told her that if any of her idiots tried to stop me, I would run over them, repeatedly. My job (Quality Assurance) was non union so they had no right to stop me from reporting for work.
I also pointed out what happened the last time they went on strike. After a lot of 'bargaining' they went back to work for half what they had been making, after the company had built a plant in Mexico. She didn't believe me, but her union members told her to shut up and that she was just a stinking figure head, because she was stupid enough to run for the office.
You're back to doing that condescending thing where you pretend people who disagree with you are just too stupid to see your point or
On the contrary. I fixed the situation by finding a better job.
Yeah, see previous re: not understanding, vs. not agreeing.
I understand your point. I _disagree_ with your point. It's not good for anyone other than lazy people who have been around longer. And that's why we're losing manufacturing jobs to China; because you wouldn't fire your brother for being lazy and useless, so my employer and yours has to pay both of you for the output of one person.
Middlemen? You mean like, the packing plant that cleans and wraps it, and then the trucker who hauls it, the grocery store who has a huge financial investment in building, staff, and inventory, that kind of middlemen? Yeah, they all deserve to get paid too, of course. Why would anyone have a problem with that?
It is interesting to note that your first "contribution" to this thread has NOTHING to do with the discussion of unions, but is a sophomoric reference to animal rectums.
"Yuk! Yuk! Hey Beavis....He said rectum." As a troll, you are a mere amateur compared to those on this newsgroup....
Sorry to say Harold, but most people today don't seem to know very much about unions, yourself included. I don't think the fact I know more than most makes me special in any way but, when I see people, such as yourself, speaking only from predjudice and not from any demonstratable "FACTS" then I know all we're going to hear is the old "well so-and-so said such- and-such" or "I am strong, I never needed them" bull associated with unfounded statements. This is your evidence of a "reasonable point?" If you can provide me with your "reasonable point" which is more than just "your opinion" I'd be happy to address it, but if not please keep it to yourself as repitition helps no one.
If the shoe fits Harold, wear it. But can you do "better than that?"
Well first how about answering some of my points? Perhaps even admit there's some truth in them? No? Well I didn't expect so. You've a one-way mind which barrells down the track looking neither left nor right and this coupled with your particular brand of determination has held you in good stead through the years. However what's good for Harold isn't always the best for others SURPRISE. I'll bet you didn't know that Harold! ;) But it's true. Learn, grow, Oh "Wise and informed" one.
Thanks for all the free info Harold, but learning to hate, at this stage in my life, just doesn't seem reasonable. But I doubt you can understand this as I'm fairly certain no one ever accused you of being "reasonable."
That's great Harold; somehow armor suits you. Too bad you seem so self centered or it might actually mean something besides blah, blah, blah.
But, instead you would have us see the drops of gold, or better, pearls, as they drop from your lips. I see, however, you're still weak on facts (ever heard of them?) and top-heavy on self-serving, stale, rehotric.
So because you felt these people were underhanded you decided to play their game??? All I can say is: Look out for Harold. He'll tell you what you should have done (Hint: It wasn't "play along").
Too bad you got buffaloed by the "bad guys" but how about giving all of the associated information. As long as you're disabled (not "UNION" disability coverage, I hope) you shouldn't have to worry about them not giving you any work, right?
When YOU make points you expect me to answer them, and, unless they're a repitition only of your "opinion", I'll attempt to answer them. If you ignore my points, and they are salient to the discussion, I'll keep bringing them back until they ARE re- cognized. Or perhaps you feel ignoring the facts is integral to your argument?
Perfect. Good for you.
Ibid
That is NOT NOT NOT my point. What I'm saying is that MANAGEMENT (yes, of the company negotiating the contract) has chosen to allow it. If it were in the company's interest to NOT allow it, it may have been done differently.
But, more to your point: It has been demonstrated, in count- less instances, that management would fire, or in some other manner "remove" older, higher paid workers with younger, lower paid workers. If you're a union how do you prevent this dispicable occurance from being repeated over and over, until it's your turn, or your father's turn, etc.? The answer? Negotiate.
Anti-union people, such as yourself, like to make it seem as though older workers have some type of mental or physical problem (or they're "lazy") which comes on them after the age of what, 50? How idiotic. But even assuming this can happen it doesn't address the issue of management moving older people out without cause. And you would join them in their efforts?
Or the financier who buys futures and then sells them for an inflated price having "added no value" to the product but who may gain a lion's share of the profit?
Or the 53 million dollar+ bonuses?
Or any one of the many day-to-day scams printed in our newspapers everyday. You do read the news, don't you? If so you're ignoring common knowledge in order to be argumentative. No thanks.
I recognize that you feel that an employer should pay your incompetant brother because you and he have solidarity. I recognize and _reject_ that.
You're right. It's mine. It's one thing for you to tolerate someone who isn't productive, that's fine, go for it. When it becomes my problem is when it effects ME. Like as a shareholder, or as someone responsible for getting a job done.
No, the answer is to be useful and to stop rewarding longevity over ability.
You keep doing it. I've said several times I don't give a shit how old someone is, IF THEY CAN DO THE JOB. The problem is that I don't have the choice, I _MUST_ take the guy who has been there longest, regardless of skill and motivation. That was and is the problem, and that was and is my point.
If they can do the job, they can stay. If they can't, then it's up to the union to protect them and find a job they can do. Or the union can carry them. But don't expect everyone around them, who didn't buy into some protection-of-the-incompetant scheme, to suffer the costs of your misguided "solidarity".
Again, all you are accomplishing is costing US manufacturers more than it would cost to outsource to China. And how's that whole thing working out for you?
So now you're against the commodities market? How do you propose food and similar _should_ be priced please?
If a CEO's job is to make money for the shareholders, and he performs that job well, he should be compensated well for it. This is that whole pay for performance thing we've been talking about. The market has decided that a CEO gets paid more than the guy who builds the product. That's just how it is.
Which specific common knowledge do you pretend I would see on the news that justifies rewarding length of service over the ability to do the job? Try to stick to that point, you keep wandering off into the weeds. At least you haven't compared me to hitler yet.
i'd imagine if it weren't for unions american workers would still look much the same as chinese or indian workers do now. thank god and the courageous men who fought (and died) for unionized labor.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.