Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Was he lazy or just short-sighted? Nowhere does it appear that he was lazy. I admit he made mistakes. We all pay in the long run for company choices like these. 9955[/snapback] I'd say lazy, because he didn't bother to look for a better job and a better position. He had no ambition to further himself, and he paid for it with his job. Companies will PAY MORE for people that are an asset to them, believe me. They don't make money off of janitors or telephone people(non-sales) or delivery drivers, they make money off of people who help them provide their service. It's up to the person who WANTS more out of their working life to go out there and BE THAT ASSET.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 I'd say lazy, because he didn't bother to look for a better job and a better position. He had no ambition to further himself, and he paid for it with his job.Companies will PAY MORE for people that are an asset to them, believe me. They don't make money off of janitors or telephone people(non-sales) or delivery drivers, they make money off of people who help them provide their service. It's up to the person who WANTS more out of their working life to go out there and BE THAT ASSET. 9958[/snapback] Fair enough. IMO, how you treat your support staff looks favorably on your company. More times than not, this is how you are judged.
VABills Posted August 28, 2004 Author Posted August 28, 2004 You guys are trying. I still honestly don;t understand what the government is going to do for this guy. His unemployment is probably only going to be 1/3 of his normal pay. Would you expect the govenment to fully pay him for the rest of his life? As far as your Bush is evil remark, that makes no sense to this specific situation. How is it Bush's fault, that this guy has been this same way for 30 years, but now it's Bush's fault. 20K is a very high salary for a janitor, and in most places in North Carolina, it would not qualify someone for food stamps. In fact 20K is double minimum wage, and is very close to the average salary of a person in this country as a whole. You know what I think. Joe needs to go back to his company and ask for his job back at 20K. Say he is sorry and understands that over the year, he was overpaid, and tha he will work on learning some new skills by taking advantage of the free education benefit. If Joe needs more money, then he should go get a second job so he can maintain his families lifestyle, or he should make some serious cuts in lifestyle, until he is reeducated and doing a higher level skill, making more money. He still has almost 20 years until he could even consider retiring on Social Security and he will be in for a shock there when he realizes how little the government will give him based on his salary. I think the company should force him to sit down with a financial planner, and I think that the company did everything correct here, except maybe not pay attention over the years to how much he really was making.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 You guys are trying. I still honestly don;t understand what the government is going to do for this guy. His unemployment is probably only going to be 1/3 of his normal pay. Would you expect the govenment to fully pay him for the rest of his life? As far as your Bush is evil remark, that makes no sense to this specific situation. How is it Bush's fault, that this guy has been this same way for 30 years, but now it's Bush's fault. 20K is a very high salary for a janitor, and in most places in North Carolina, it would not qualify someone for food stamps. In fact 20K is double minimum wage, and is very close to the average salary of a person in this country as a whole. You know what I think. Joe needs to go back to his company and ask for his job back at 20K. Say he is sorry and understands that over the year, he was overpaid, and tha he will work on learning some new skills by taking advantage of the free education benefit. If Joe needs more money, then he should go get a second job so he can maintain his families lifestyle, or he should make some serious cuts in lifestyle, until he is reeducated and doing a higher level skill, making more money. He still has almost 20 years until he could even consider retiring on Social Security and he will be in for a shock there when he realizes how little the government will give him based on his salary. I think the company should force him to sit down with a financial planner, and I think that the company did everything correct here, except maybe not pay attention over the years to how much he really was making. 9968[/snapback] You are right. The governement needs not to take care of him forever. He definitly DOES NOT need to go back to his old job. Most likely, it won't be there at all in the future. What is the situation on his benefits? He is still young. He needs to get off the "schnide" and leave, start new somewhere else. The problem is, he doesn't seem like that kinda guy. What's happening down there is what happened up here (the Rust belt). The problem is he doesn't even have a college degree. Where do you start? Learn to drive a truck Joe, go over the road for a while until you get your experience. Maybe then you can settle into one place with a higher paying local job. Start a landscaping business. Etc... Etc... Don't glorify 20k... It is sad... For crying out loud, my mother made 28k back in 1979...
VABills Posted August 28, 2004 Author Posted August 28, 2004 Don't glorify 20k... It is sad... For crying out loud, my mother made 28k back in 1979... 9995[/snapback] Well good for your mom. Mine was making about 5k in 1979. We lived on foodstamps, on and off welfare, and even with that, she needed serious help from friends and family to make it. But 20K is decent money. Granted you can't go out to eat every night, you can't go to hawaii on vacation, but it is enough to pay rent in North Carolina, put food on the table, still get basic cable to watch TV, and buy a decent car. He was getting family medical and dental from the company, and to me this was his worst mistake. Walking away from a job and giving that up was stupidity, IMHO. Yes he is lazy, IMHO, because he had the opportunity to go better himself, learn a higher level skill, and he needed to consider that part of his job. He was happier to come back and watch his TV and drink a few at night instead. Maybe he did a good job during his 40 hours per, but he also needed to spend an extra 5 per learning.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Well good for your mom. Mine was making about 5k in 1979. We lived on foodstamps, on and off welfare, and even with that, she needed serious help from friends and family to make it. But 20K is decent money. Granted you can't go out to eat every night, you can't go to hawaii on vacation, but it is enough to pay rent in North Carolina, put food on the table, still get basic cable to watch TV, and buy a decent car. He was getting family medical and dental from the company, and to me this was his worst mistake. Walking away from a job and giving that up was stupidity, IMHO. Yes he is lazy, IMHO, because he had the opportunity to go better himself, learn a higher level skill, and he needed to consider that part of his job. He was happier to come back and watch his TV and drink a few at night instead. Maybe he did a good job during his 40 hours per, but he also needed to spend an extra 5 per learning. 10005[/snapback] If he was getting full medical and dental... Then I don't know? That is pretty good to get 100% of that. My mom was an accountant... So I guess she had skills. Up here building engineers earn about 35 bucks an hour.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 20K is a very high salary for a janitor, and in most places in North Carolina, it would not qualify someone for food stamps. In fact 20K is double minimum wage, and is very close to the average salary of a person in this country as a whole. 9968[/snapback] I assumed 20k BEFORE taxes... Judging by all of the jobs that are out there, I didn't think that most people made almost 20k a year. At my worst-paying job, I was making almost 6.00 an hour. I guess I was not looking at the bottom of the barrel jobs then.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 I assumed 20k BEFORE taxes... Judging by all of the jobs that are out there, I didn't think that most people made almost 20k a year. At my worst-paying job, I was making almost 6.00 an hour. I guess I was not looking at the bottom of the barrel jobs then. 10012[/snapback] Like you said before... Some need food stamps... So the burden becomes the government's as the company lowers the "bottom line". Why should taxpayers help the corporate "bottom line"? It may be indirect, yet it is there.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Like you said before... Some need food stamps... So the burden becomes the government's as the company lowers the "bottom line". Why should taxpayers help the corporate "bottom line"? It may be indirect, yet it is there. 10021[/snapback] MY problem is when businesses whine and cry to the government to help bail them out. I say screw them, because if they want us to understand about their profit margins, and their outsourcing, and their wages, then they should live like the free enterprise system they love so much, and go under or file for bankruptcy. HOWEVER, the problem is that these same companies who do this to cut costs expect us to help them out when they mismanage their companies. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If Chrysler goes out of business, so WHAT. They'll be another company who will fill the gap in the market. That's what I love so much about Southwest and JetBlue... they are FORCING these companies who have gotten fat off of high airline tickets to compete, and we ALL win. It's just beautiful. NOW THAT is free enterprise at work, not begging to kep a dinosaur airline operating.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 MY problem is when businesses whine and cry to the government to help bail them out. I say screw them, because if they want us to understand about their profit margins, and their outsourcing, and their wages, then they should live like the free enterprise system they love so much, and go under or file for bankruptcy. HOWEVER, the problem is that these same companies who do this to cut costs expect us to help them out when they mismanage their companies. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. If Chrysler goes out of business, so WHAT. They'll be another company who will fill the gap in the market. That's what I love so much about Southwest and JetBlue... they are FORCING these companies who have gotten fat off of high airline tickets to compete, and we ALL win. It's just beautiful. NOW THAT is free enterprise at work, not begging to kep a dinosaur airline operating. 10030[/snapback] I agree! Then they blame everybody and their brother for the mismanagement. What gets me is the disproportionate amount between upper tier jobs and lower tier jobs. The working stiff hasn't made any headway, while the others have outpaced them ten fold. We are becoming a 2 class society. It is just a matter of time before it blows up in our face.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 I agree! Then they blame everybody and their brother for the mismanagement. What gets me is the disproportionate amount between upper tier jobs and lower tier jobs. The working stiff hasn't made any headway, while the others have outpaced them ten fold. We are becoming a 2 class society. It is just a matter of time before it blows up in our face. 10038[/snapback] I wouldn't say that... my main concern has ALWAYS been the companies leaving the US with their jobs so they can pollute, give these outrageously low wages, and still HQ in the United States, living large, and us giving them everything. Who KNOWS what kinds of conditions the people they pay in Asia live under... and I think half the blame should go to the damn unions! THEY demanded WAY too much for their jobs, never were happy, and now look at the mess we are in. The airline pilots are ESPECIALLY finding all about what it's like to demand the world, and lose their jobs. Serves em right for being idiots.
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 I wouldn't say that... my main concern has ALWAYS been the companies leaving the US with their jobs so they can pollute, give these outrageously low wages, and still HQ in the United States, living large, and us giving them everything. Who KNOWS what kinds of conditions the people they pay in Asia live under... and I think half the blame should go to the damn unions! THEY demanded WAY too much for their jobs, never were happy, and now look at the mess we are in. The airline pilots are ESPECIALLY finding all about what it's like to demand the world, and lose their jobs. Serves em right for being idiots. 10081[/snapback] Attaway, blame union workers for getting steamrolled, picked apart, and sold out by their leaders. Good show, when's the tarring and feathering begin? I think you are dead right with most of your post, and I think there are plenty of cases where unions are too strong for their own good -- a lot of teacher unions (even though I am one) for example, theater and film, baseball, etc. -- HOWEVER, working class folks like my dad put their lives at risk on high wires everyday and are getting told that they should work on their own with less safety provisions taken and no crewmen to help them should anything go wrong. They need a union to protect them, and they're not getting that protection from the union OR the government because it's all about the dollar. That guy hanging out of the bucket electrocuted because the job went to the lowest bidder is a direct result. Unions aren't perfect, but the alternative, while cheaper, lowers the standard of living and safety for an awful lot of people. Companies that have been EXTREMELY profitable are moving, to make even more money and to be held less accountable. Nobody held a gun to these CEOs' heads and said, "move your office to Bermuda and by another Hummer or you're going to get it." The greed in this country is infuriating.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Attaway, blame union workers for getting steamrolled, picked apart, and sold out by their leaders. Good show, when's the tarring and feathering begin? I think you are dead right with most of your post, and I think there are plenty of cases where unions are too strong for their own good -- a lot of teacher unions (even though I am one) for example, theater and film, baseball, etc. -- HOWEVER, working class folks like my dad put their lives at risk on high wires everyday and are getting told that they should work on their own with less safety provisions taken and no crewmen to help them should anything go wrong. They need a union to protect them, and they're not getting that protection from the union OR the government because it's all about the dollar. That guy hanging out of the bucket electrocuted because the job went to the lowest bidder is a direct result. Unions aren't perfect, but the alternative, while cheaper, lowers the standard of living and safety for an awful lot of people. Companies that have been EXTREMELY profitable are moving, to make even more money and to be held less accountable. Nobody held a gun to these CEOs' heads and said, "move your office to Bermuda and by another Hummer or you're going to get it." The greed in this country is infuriating. 10152[/snapback] I NEVER said unions were a bad idea... there is no way in HELL that I'd ever want to go back to the robber baron days of old, the 'call out the troops to fight workers' days. I am merely saying that when you demand MUCH more than you should be entitled to as an American worker and it really hurts the company you work for, then you have done a disservice to your fellow employees. I blame them for HALF the problem... the other half is of course the greedy companies that I spoke of earlier (bad conditions, jobs overseas, etc..) You can't change the system by re-electing the same politicians; that's why the two-party system is in itself bad for America.
Captain America Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Attaway, blame union workers for getting steamrolled, picked apart, and sold out by their leaders. Good show, when's the tarring and feathering begin? I think you are dead right with most of your post, and I think there are plenty of cases where unions are too strong for their own good -- a lot of teacher unions (even though I am one) for example, theater and film, baseball, etc. -- HOWEVER, working class folks like my dad put their lives at risk on high wires everyday and are getting told that they should work on their own with less safety provisions taken and no crewmen to help them should anything go wrong. They need a union to protect them, and they're not getting that protection from the union OR the government because it's all about the dollar. That guy hanging out of the bucket electrocuted because the job went to the lowest bidder is a direct result. Unions aren't perfect, but the alternative, while cheaper, lowers the standard of living and safety for an awful lot of people. Companies that have been EXTREMELY profitable are moving, to make even more money and to be held less accountable. Nobody held a gun to these CEOs' heads and said, "move your office to Bermuda and by another Hummer or you're going to get it." The greed in this country is infuriating. 10152[/snapback] The greed in this country is infuriating Become a missionary in a foreign country
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 I NEVER said unions were a bad idea... there is no way in HELL that I'd ever want to go back to the robber baron days of old, the 'call out the troops to fight workers' days. I am merely saying that when you demand MUCH more than you should be entitled to as an American worker and it really hurts the company you work for, then you have done a disservice to your fellow employees. I blame them for HALF the problem... the other half is of course the greedy companies that I spoke of earlier (bad conditions, jobs overseas, etc..) You can't change the system by re-electing the same politicians; that's why the two-party system is in itself bad for America. 10162[/snapback] I see both of the arguments here. There has been way too much blaming the unions. Yes, they are not immune to any blame, should they shoulder most of the blame? No. Why do we do it? Is it because the union guy is put more in the public spotlight, is seen everyday? For some reason, as Americans, we have this warped sense of "attainment". We rationalize that the guy on top must have somehow worked his butt off to attain what he has, now they are entitled to coast and reap what they apparently sowed. Do we know how they attained it? No. We can't even begin to imagine what the story was. Good or bad we give them the benefit of the doubt. Yet, somehow the guy on the bottom takes all the flak because he is appeared as being a slacker/lazy, wants something for nothing?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 I see both of the arguments here. There has been way too much blaming the unions. Yes, they are not immune to any blame, should they shoulder most of the blame? No. Why do we do it? Is it because the union guy is put more in the public spotlight, is seen everyday? For some reason, as Americans, we have this warped sense of "attainment". We rationalize that the guy on top must have somehow worked his butt off to attain what he has, now they are entitled to coast and reap what they apparently sowed. Do we know how they attained it? No. We can't even begin to imagine what the story was. Good or bad we give them the benefit of the doubt. Yet, somehow the guy on the bottom takes all the flak because he is appeared as being a slacker/lazy, wants something for nothing? 10571[/snapback] I decry the abuses of corporate America and the government who lets them feed at the trough while they ship jobs away, all the time. This is perhaps the most 'liberal' of my stances, but it is a problem that feeds this wage gap. If corporations acted in the best interest of America, then they wouldn't need regulating in the first place. However, their record of abuse is well known, and therefore regulations needed to be put into place to make sure that they acted humanely, and responsibly. We tried to let them operate under a completely loose free enterprise system during the 19th century, and of course the inevitable happened... low wages, bad working conditions, high cost of goods, environmental abuses, etc. Many examples include coal and copper mines, railroads, and textile mills. It is especially interesting reading about the companies and miners in the West in the latter half of the 19th century... Inevitably, the pendulum shifted the other way when unions became powerful. No longer could companies abuse their workers, or force people to tow the line. Now, unions could shut down companies at the drop of a hat, and the hard negotiations began. Of course, unions demanded way too much, and in a lot of cases, they got more than what they actually deserved. This led to a very dangerous problem... and it forced companies to begin to explore OTHER means of reducing their labor costs. And how do you suppose they solved it? You guessed it... by shutting down plants in union states, moving them to the South, or overseas. NOW ironically, the unions screwed themselves, and they look like the bad guys. It's all a delicate balance, and when either side tries to stomp on the scale, it goes out of whack. Hence, the blame is pretty even; unions demand far too much, and companies take their tax breaks and move overseas.
Recommended Posts