Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 http://www.wivb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3141175&nav=UABuY5F1 291306[/snapback] Gee, there's a suprise. A union member being paid to do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
***PetrinoInAlbany*** Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 That is a problem with the gov't unions However, do not stereotype all unions. My union leadership is paid the same base salary as if they were working here at the hospital, however, if they are doing union duties, that portion is covered by the union. Ex: Our Chief Steward basically works half his time at the union (paid by union). The other half he works in blood bank(paid by hospital). He doesn't get PTO time accrued for those hrs he works for the union. His health benefits are unaffected Pretty fair IMO 291711[/snapback] Finally ... a common sense post in a "union" thread. The unions are a convenient demon on this board. Problem in their logic, though... Right now, only 13% of the American work force is unionized. Yet, WE are the cause of all labor problems? Seems a bit inconsistent with reality. I'm a union member, and most of the PPP regulars are likely NOT if you're posting in here. Yet, THEY are going to tell ME what unions are all about? Did it ever occur to the union-bashers that patronage and corruption in city and county government ITSELF might be more the cause of "no show" jobs? Of course not... blame the unions. We have seen "no show" jobs here in Albany, too. Know who's fighting the hardest to eliminate them? CSEA & PEF. Yeah, the unions. The next time you feel like bashing a union, ask yourself if what's really bothering you is that YOU want what WE'RE fighting for. Fair wages. Safe working conditions. Reasonable benefits. And integrity in the workplace. Some day, the other 87% of you will wake up and realize what our grandfathers figured out many decades ago. If you want to trust the stewardship over the forty or fifty years of your life that you'll be working to corporations' consciences or politicians' integrity, you're probably not going to like the outcome. But, hey ... if they farm out your job to someone in India, you can always blame the unions. Right? Jeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 But, hey ... if they farm out your job to someone in India, you can always blame the unions. Right? Jeesh. 293137[/snapback] Yes, yes we can. Why? Because you and your ilk have driven the cost of labor in this country through the roof over the past 5 decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Yes, yes we can. Why? Because you and your ilk have driven the cost of labor in this country through the roof over the past 5 decades. 293283[/snapback] I'd love to know how companies sending jobs overseas is unfair but unions doing everything they can to bleed their employers dry is AOK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 I see this thread hanging around for days.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I heard a report this morning that less than 1 in 10 people belong to a union these days. First off, I'm not sure how to construe that, but if the figure is right then why fuss over them? They certainly don't wield the power they used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Yes, yes we can. Why? Because you and your ilk have driven the cost of labor in this country through the roof over the past 5 decades. 293283[/snapback] Joe, when will you see reality? Are high labor costs the cause of high prices? I think not.Take Nike for example. They pay mere pennies a week to sweatshop workers in third world countries. This amazingly low labor cost when compared with fat greedy American workers should allow Nike to lower the cost of their products. Do they? No, they charge $150 for a $30 pair of sneakers. Your logic is flawed, Joe. Business will always try to pay the least that it has to, and will never adjust the price of their goods accordingly. There is no relationship between low labor cost and price. Companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyLee Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I heard a report this morning that less than 1 in 10 people belong to a union these days. First off, I'm not sure how to construe that, but if the figure is right then why fuss over them? They certainly don't wield the power they used to. 293932[/snapback] Yeah, I think I just read somewhere else on these boards that only 13% of the US workforce is union represented. So that leaves leaves an 87% non-union workforce. It's comical for some on here to blame everything that's wrong in labor on 13% of the workforce. Maybe it's just 'union envy' eh? I for one, am glad to be one of the lucky few . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Yeah, I think I just read somewhere else on these boards that only 13% of the US workforce is union represented. So that leaves leaves an 87% non-union workforce. It's comical for some on here to blame everything that's wrong in labor on 13% of the workforce. Maybe it's just 'union envy' eh? I for one, am glad to be one of the lucky few . 294074[/snapback] When did you start working for a union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyLee Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 When did you start working for a union? 294078[/snapback] I don't 'work' for a union. I do benefit from union representation though, if that's what you were trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 There is no relationship between low labor cost and price. Companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to. Ladies and gentlemen, we have found the dumbest post in the history of TSW!!!! Boat, I don't even know where to start. Don't want to buy Nikes? Don't, go to target and buy a $20 pair of sneakers. Guess where those sneakers will be made? To say companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to is pure idiocy. I guess you didn't read the article about the steel company in Ft. Wayne whose 1,600 employees have packages that average over $100,000 per year. Non union, btw (of course, if they were union 1,400 of them would be making $50k no matter how good or bad they were). Companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to. only 13% of the US workforce is union represented. so only 13% of the US workforce is paid fairly?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Oh my God! Are you actually trying to tell me that how much it costs to make an item doesn't influence its price? Please tell me you are joking. Joe, when will you see reality? Are high labor costs the cause of high prices? I think not.Take Nike for example. They pay mere pennies a week to sweatshop workers in third world countries. This amazingly low labor cost when compared with fat greedy American workers should allow Nike to lower the cost of their products. Do they? No, they charge $150 for a $30 pair of sneakers. Your logic is flawed, Joe. Business will always try to pay the least that it has to, and will never adjust the price of their goods accordingly. There is no relationship between low labor cost and price. Companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to. 293963[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Oh my God! Are you actually trying to tell me that how much it costs to make an item doesn't influence its price? Please tell me you are joking. 294141[/snapback] My point is that cost of manufacture is not an indicator of price. Societal perception is a far greater influence of price. Nike is perceived as a status item, a brand that somehow makes you a "better" person in the eyes of our shallow society. Hence the high price while the cost to make the item is ridiculously low. Probably the same as the "Target" sneaker example used to ridicule me. The price of that Target sneaker is again influenced by status or lack thereof, not by the cost of manufacture. No one will pay a high price for "buddies" as we used to call those sneakers. That is why the price is low.Of course the cost of manufacture has SOME bearing on the price, but not nearly as much as the demand of the public. It's just one example of how companies are greedy and don't want to pay fair wages. Yeah there are exceptions like this steel company everyone keeps mentioning. But that company is uncommon-that's why it is NEWS that this company exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Ladies and gentlemen, we have found the dumbest post in the history of TSW!!!! Boat, I don't even know where to start. Don't want to buy Nikes? Don't, go to target and buy a $20 pair of sneakers. Guess where those sneakers will be made? To say companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to is pure idiocy. I guess you didn't read the article about the steel company in Ft. Wayne whose 1,600 employees have packages that average over $100,000 per year. Non union, btw (of course, if they were union 1,400 of them would be making $50k no matter how good or bad they were). so only 13% of the US workforce is paid fairly?? 294134[/snapback] Gmac, I think YOU"RE dumb. You have just emphasized my point, not disproved it through your mockery. Yes, Nikes and "Target" sneakers are probably made in a third world country. Why do they not cost the same then? By your logic, the cost would be similar, in relation to their production cost. But we both know that the cost is quite different. Why? Because the price is dictated by the demand of consumers for that product. Nike makes a status product very cheaply and gouges the customer for them while paying slave wages. Just one example in a long line of corporate greed. It's overly simplistic and dumb to say that your steel company would be less successful and it's employees less well compensated if they were unionized. And to imply that the workers would be somehow "worse" These are purely stereotypes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 To say companies will not pay what is fair unless forced to is pure idiocy. I guess you didn't read the article about the steel company in Ft. Wayne whose 1,600 employees have packages that average over $100,000 per year. Non union, btw (of course, if they were union 1,400 of them would be making $50k no matter how good or bad they were). so only 13% of the US workforce is paid fairly?? 294134[/snapback] While that steel company is a nice anomaly, most companies will NOT pay what is fair. Of course, fair to them is probably not what the employee would consider fair. As for the 13% (that was not my quote by the way) who really knows? Our society compensates people in ways that many would not consider "fair". I'm sure most on this board would say that rappers are paid unfairly with their "abilities" or "education" as most are probably not college educated. How many people do you know who would NOT want to be given any more compensation by the company they work for? That 13% may actually be a little high. Is it "fair" that a soldier sent to die in Iraq defending the USA is paid so little relative to other jobs with less impact on the world? Many on this board would have no problem saying that a middle manager at XYZ corp with a bachelors degree is fairly paid at $65,000 but would cry foul at a police officer who might save a life on any given day making $50,000 because he doesn't have a 4 year college education. He simply isn't a worthwhile enough person without that degree, even though he may have a natural instinct for police work. Yes, the right wing views on this board are frankly warped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 My point is that cost of manufacture is not an indicator of price. Of course the cost of manufacture has SOME bearing on the price, but not nearly as much as the demand of the public. It's just one example of how companies are greedy and don't want to pay fair wages. Yeah there are exceptions like this steel company everyone keeps mentioning. But that company is uncommon-that's why it is NEWS that this company exists. 294522[/snapback] I have a few suggestions for you. 1. Read some Ayn Rand. 2. Take some basic economics classes. 3. Quit your union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 todd, I am guessing that part of the reason you are such an avid footballfan is because of the strong labor/managenent relationship between NFL management and the NFLPA. You know why? Because the Bills have a comparatively "poor" owner, play in a cold, small market, yet we are still able to compete. You seem unable to understand the fact that there IS such a thing as a good working relationship between unions and management. Your view is hard for me to understand because I have always thought you to be a smart guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Sure there's such a thing as a good working relationship. But there's also tons of evidence of corruption, waste, and stupid union rules that make it difficult for companies to compete. For example, the last place I worked, I couldn't move a small table & 3 chairs 10 feet to have a meeting without calling facilities to do it. Why? The union that the facilities maintenance crews belonged to forced my former place of buisness to include that in their renewed contract. They were afriad that they would become useless. So my former place of work not only had to deal with the inefficiency that this caused, they had to set up a system by which I had to request stupid services like this, and wait for 3 days for the stuff to be moved. Yeah, that makes quite a bit of sense. That's the kind of stupidity that helps me form my opinion. Of course, some unions are good. Teacher's unions for example. And please don't use the NFL as an example of what that majority of unions are like. These players are MILLIONAIRES, not your average joe. I am a smart guy. Who thinks the days of corruption and ineficciency should be behind us. todd, I am guessing that part of the reason you are such an avid footballfan is because of the strong labor/managenent relationship between NFL management and the NFLPA. You know why? Because the Bills have a comparatively "poor" owner, play in a cold, small market, yet we are still able to compete. You seem unable to understand the fact that there IS such a thing as a good working relationship between unions and management. Your view is hard for me to understand because I have always thought you to be a smart guy. 294545[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 todd, I am guessing that part of the reason you are such an avid footballfan is because of the strong labor/managenent relationship between NFL management and the NFLPA. You know why? Because the Bills have a comparatively "poor" owner, play in a cold, small market, yet we are still able to compete. You seem unable to understand the fact that there IS such a thing as a good working relationship between unions and management. Your view is hard for me to understand because I have always thought you to be a smart guy. 294545[/snapback] Remarkably, when the BILLS were actually the class of the NFL there was no salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 My point is that cost of manufacture is not an indicator of price. Societal perception is a far greater influence of price. 294522[/snapback] Societal perception is nowhere NEAR a far greater influencer of price over cost to manufacture. For every Nike in this world, there are 1,000 Keds. To use Nike as an example of your train of thought is correct. To use it as a way to prove your point is absolutely begging for a class in economics. Perception is the way to elevate your price. Not set it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts