From my point of view, I see no real difference between stealing my money to give to Wal-mart workers and stealing my money to give to the unemployed. In either case, someone is stealing my money.
I understand that, but my point was more from the stand point of reality. (That's why I included the phrase "to fit our current system."
A utopia on either side is never going to happen. We won't be living in a society where everyone from the king/president/tyrant/whatever to the poorest schmoe all have the same amount in their bank account (sorry lefties) and we won't ever be living in a world where nobody throws some sort of rope to those who are drowning (sorry righties).
The truth is always somewhere in the middle. The middle I like is where people can get help if they falter or get hit with bad luck (that help comes with strict conditions), but they can't live off the system.
I fully understand and agree with not having money pulled from your pockets, but I also do understand helping someone in need. Maybe it doesn't come from taxes or even through the government? But again, this is for a different debate. Let's stay on topic here.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
From my point of view, I see no real difference between stealing my money to give to Wal-mart workers and stealing my money to give to the unemployed. In either case, someone is stealing my money.
From my point of view (being as naive as it is), if they're working at Walmart they have less time to get knocked up to get more gument money or using that money to get high. And they sure as hell won't be out on the street doing whatever.
But in a perfect world, I don't have strangers in my wallet taking cash, it's just my kids. :laugh:
Walmart's sole purpose is to sell me groceries and other stuff. That's it. To do this they have to offer a product comperable to their competition, and still give me a reason to pass another store to get to the Walmart. In this case they do it through having lower prices.
In order to have lower prices they need to keep the unions out. They need to have the least expensive labor pool possible, while playing by the rule of law. I've heard of a couple labor violations they've had in the past, but there you go... the laws on the books are being enforced.
If you want Walmart to be forced by law to jack up their workers' salaries, that's fucked up and you're evil.
If you want Walmart to be forced to carry more workforce than they need, you need to move to France because that's what they do and their economy is in the toilet.
I personally wish Walmart could automate their entire operation and fire everyfuckingbody, because then I'd be able to buy groceries for even less.
I don't want Walmart to be a jobs program. I want them to sell me cheap groceries. And that is, in fact, their sole reason for existing.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I was in the store one day working around the jewerly counter and there was this guy looking at stuff. After a few little bit the girl behind the counter rang up his stuff and as he was walking away the girl behind the counter said to him "Good luck, I hope she say yes!"
Another time I was near a girl who was talking to a manager and he asks her when she wants to come in for her interview. She tells him anytime, so the manager says he will set everything up for tomarrow and following the interview she can take her drug test. The girl then says "Drug test right after? Can we push the interview back to next week?"
Neither have anything to do with walmart being evil/good/indiferent just amusing situtation that I had come across.
Unions are bullys. Plain and simple. They extort money from businesses everyday in the name of 'the worker'. Unions are legalized organized crime. Unions artaficially raise the price of goods so that their club can benefit.
If there are people willing to do the work for less money, why not let them?
And I have no proof, but based on what I've seen of the welfare system, there are no guys at Wal-Mart drawing ANYthing from the government, it would only be the women with children that are. And they would be wether they worked at WM or not. Welfare is setup such that a person can't afford to get off it, or there is no motivating factor getting them off. People aren't on welfare or other gov assistance because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them enough. Wal-Mart just has a higher percentage of gov assisted employees because those are the people that will stock shelves and stuff for less money. And rest assured that those same people are still knocking each other up, doing their drugs, etc. Wal-Mart does not MAKE the dreggs. . . they employ them. Unionizing Wal-Mart wouldn't solve ANY of the issues plaguing the WM employees. It would only drive costs up, and make some union officials more money. The employees might THINK they are making more money, but when everything they buy costs more money to cover the cost of them making more money. .. well, then, who wins? Oh ya, the union.
Walmart doesn't want to be shaken down by a union, so they fire anyone wanting a union. Good.
See I told you I shopped at Aldi's. Because of the fact that they had a choice of not having a union. Thats the key word. CHOICE. You are stating you don't want the people at Walmart to have a choice because you want cheap grocerys.
Cakedaddy hates unions that fine.Remember unions were made for a reason once. The other way to keep unions out is to do what Aldi's does. Pay your employees a fair wage and treat them good.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
You know, I rewrote that sentence a few times because I agree it is excessive, especially since it implies I want more government intrusion into daily life, which we know I don't.
But it expresses how strongly I feel about it.
Are there laws saying a business can't get rid of a union?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Are there laws saying a business can't get rid of a union?
Here's the issue I see. At its loosest & most skeletal, a union is just a collection of employees who are agreeing on certain shit they want from management & tell each other that every member will go to bat for another if required. How can you make that sort of socio-economic association illegal? Or is it the strongarm tactics & corrupt leadership you want to prevent? That'd just require making it illegal for them to elect a prez or have an appreciable infrastructure. But what's to prevent all the stockboys at the grocery store from banding together one night at the bar & collectively telling the management they want more cash? What's to prevent them from pooling cash & giving it to their coworker that hurt his back or some shit & then asking for another raise since they're now effectively working for themselves & a fraction of another person? What's to prevent them from getting together & saying that if management doesn't meet their demands, they'll picket out front w\ signs all day? The suits can try to hire new workers & such, but if no one's willing to cross the line, there ain't no more stockboys, & management might've to renegotiate shit. An informal group of like-minded employees can accomplish every legitimate thing a modern-day, organized union can accomplish. If you wanted to outlaw that, you'd be stepping on freedom of assembly & speech at the very least.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Well hell, there's a job for the illegal mexicans. They had no problem illegally crossing an armed border, they would have no problem crossing a picket line.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Well hell, there's a job for the illegal mexicans. They had no problem illegally crossing an armed border, they would have no problem crossing a picket line.
Then that's a bargaining position the employees should've to deal w\. Back in the day, when companies were genuinely pricks to their employees, it wasn't terribly hard to convince a large number of people to stick it to them. But if your position is easily filled by some other unskilled labour, you're screwed & more or less've to take whatever shit the manager throws at you.
It's how the hacienda/plantation shit works in parts of Central & South America to this very day. The dude that owns the land you sharecrop on might be a son-of-a-bitch, but you take his highway robbery deals & like it cos there's a hundred other dudes not currently fortunate enough to live where you do who'd give their left nut to take the shitty deal you're bitching about.
True job security is achieved by connections, experience, & education, possibly in that order.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
The other way to keep unions out is to do what Aldi's does. Pay your employees a fair wage and treat them good.
That's only a part of the problem. Unions were great back in the day where they made it illegal for your employer to damn near kill you everyday while at work because it was cheaper to let you die than to put protective measures in and stuff. Good job unions.
What I don't like is them keeping legitimate business people out of work simply because they aren't part of their club. I've told this story before, here it is again:
I'm on a job site. Big project. Electrician company A is falling way behind. Not gonna be on time and the store being built is going to miss their planned opening day. Big deal cause commercials are running, etc for opening day. They fire the electrician company, which is union, and hire Electrician company B that is non-union. Company B has built many others of said store and could probably catch up and meet opening day. The union finds out there's a non-union company in there doing the work. They call their friends at the city. The city shows up at the site and says to get company B off the job right now and to hire a union company or they are shutting the site down and NOTHING is going to get done. Store was forced to hire a union company and the store had to open while still under construction and the new union company didn't finish the work until two months after the store was open. And since all work had to be done after hours, the store also had to pay all the electrical workers overtime so it cost more cause union company A screwed up.
So, union A is too slow and gets fired.
Non-union shop comes in to pick up the slack and gets the job done.
They are thrown out by the CITY for lack of work permits.
Union shop B comes in, miraculously with all permits and costs more and takes two months longer than non-union shop.
That's good?
Now, it is to the point where I have to become a union shop, increasing my expenses because I WILL have union expenses so that I can continue to work at certain sites. In other words, I pay my employees good. They don't want to be union. But in order for me to do the work, I have to pay the unions. Isn't that extortion? The company needing the work done WANTS me to do the work. They trust me, I'm experienced, etc. I can't do the work because the city will only let union workers on the site. Why is this legal?
On top of that, once I go union, and I need more employees, I can't interview people and pick the best one. I have to go to the union and take the next person on the list. If he sucks, I have to pay him for a minimum amount of time before I can fire him, and pull the next one from the list. So, I have to pull from a pool of tards, half of which really don't want to work. They just want the high pay and benifits you get with a union shop. I have to suffer through them and many more before getting someone worth using. That's bullshit.
Then, when things are slow, I have to let some of my good employees go. When things pick back up, I can't get my guys back. Again, I have to take who the union sends over. So, I have no team that's used to working together. I have a bunch of people I have to teach and tell how I want things done, or how the customers want things done. Mean while, the people that DO know how I and the customers want something done are either not working, but on the list, or working for someone else now. And that too, is bullshit.
The BEST part about a union is, I can't work. Nope. As the company owner, I would get fucking FINED, if I'm walking around a job site with a tool in my back pocket. If there's work to be done, I have to hire a union worker to do the work. I'm not allowed to do it my self. So now, I have to charge the client DOUBLE. One to cover my sallary, cause, you know, I have a business to make money. A second, to cover the sallary of the employee.
Then there's the set hours. 9 to 5 with a half hour lunch at noon and two 15 minute breaks in between. EVERY person that works for me would rather work straight through and go home an hour ealier. Or, work a couple hours over and have the next day off, or whatever. But no. That flexible schedule freedom is gone with a union. Union finds out they are doing that? I get fined. So now, instead of working when we want to, we work when the union says. Fuck that. . .
I have to put up with all that bullshit, because I'm not union.
I wish there was a way I could just go to the union and give them 10k to have access to the work, but not have to put up with their bullshit. But, some might consider a pay off like that as illegal or unfair or something.
Unions suck and they should die a quick, but extremely painful death.
I've said it a million times and I will continue to do so, unions are the perfect example of the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The worst part of the unions is that they have their members completely brainwashed about how good the union system works for them.
At least some seem to be getting a hint. Didn't the big unions just have a major break up because there were a lot of members sick and tired of seeing their dues go to the Democrats?
I mean, someone HAD to get a clue at some point right? Unions give Dems money, they tell their people to vote Dem no matter what, and then they negotiate election day as a day off for their people so they can go vote.
At what point does that become buying votes?
Edited By Leisher on 1145367104
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
The other way to keep unions out is to do what Aldi's does. Pay your employees a fair wage and treat them good.
That's only a part of the problem. Unions were great back in the day where they made it illegal for your employer to damn near kill you everyday while at work because it was cheaper to let you die than to put protective measures in and stuff. Good job unions.
On top of that, once I go union, and I need more employees, I can't interview people and pick the best one. I have to go to the union and take the next person on the list. If he sucks, I have to pay him for a minimum amount of time before I can fire him, and pull the next one from the list. So, I have to pull from a pool of tards, half of which really don't want to work. They just want the high pay and benifits you get with a union shop. I have to suffer through them and many more before getting someone worth using. That's bullshit.
You sir have never been in a union pool. So you must be getting your information from someone else. You don't have to take the next on the list. I know people in union pools who have been blackballed to shitty travel jobs because noone in town wants to work them.
I also know people who always work for the same company because that company wants a certain group before testing the pool.
No unions aren't what they use to be but like most things I am waiting for the pendaluim to swing back to where they are useful.
As for Gordons banning of unions because we now have laws.
What are we going to do. Have a jobsite lawyer hanging around instead of a union rep.? I'd take my chances with the rep.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
As for Gordons banning of unions because we now have laws.
What are we going to do. Have a jobsite lawyer hanging around instead of a union rep.? I'd take my chances with the rep.
Huh?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Walmart doesn't want to be shaken down by a union, so they fire anyone wanting a union. Good.
I do believe somewhere else you said they should be illegal also.
We don't need unions so we should have lawyers to protect us because we have laws to protect the people don't we.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
