Social Thread - Chat about Non-Golf Here!

[Gunther]

Could be either a grandfathered plan or something shared between family members. This would be an individual plan.

Ah, yes, relatively new phone but we've been with them for years.

[Jeremie Boop]

Interesting that verizon is the lowest price when people seem to always complain about how expensive they are. I'm still grandfathered into the unlimited data plan for Verizon and my monthly bill is pretty low. The old unlimited plan is only 29.99.... I can't use any upgrades but I just buy a used phone because they are plenty fast enough for what I need.

[CarlSpackler]

I say find a new plane. :-(

I was tweeting with @deltassist. They wanted to help and I suggested offering comp beverages. They apologized saying they have no way of contacting the flight crew. I think that's reasonable when your on your second broken azz plane. I've actually had to go to a third plane with Delta before.

[Ernest Jones]

I'm all for right to work and no income tax don't know where you got I wasn't for that.

Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.

[David in FL]

Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.

Huh?  The concept of free choice in the work place?  I've never forced anyone to work for me, nor been able to stop a top performer from leaving me for a better paying gig.

Not sure how that "only" benefits employers.

[Gunther]

Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.  [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/104070/] [/URL]

All I have to say is "credibility blown". Damn shame. ;)

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.

Huh?  The concept of free choice in the work place?  I've never forced anyone to work for me, nor been able to stop a top performer from leaving me for a better paying gig.

Not sure how that "only" benefits employers.

It's not about forcing people to work somewhere or leave somewhere. Calling it Right to Work is just a sneaky way of making it sound like a good thing when it really has nothing to do with someone's right to work.

Right to Work states allow a worker to opt out of paying union dues while still benefitting from all the protections and representation that their co-workers are paying for. Human nature being what it is, a high % of these workers do opt out leaving the unions with less operational funds to file grievances, protect workers and lobby for better laws and more equitable tax structures. The real kicker is that the union is still bound by the Duty of Fair Representation to the free loaders who have opted out of paying their share. Of course the non-payers are perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits and salary increases negotiated by the unions and they don't feel the slightest bit shy to demand that the unions expend funds and resources to protect them when they need it. It's ok, someone else will pick up the tab, hey, who doesn't like a free lunch?

How about we pass some Right to not Pay Your Taxes legislation? That way we can all have our public services and roads and what not but some other sucker can pay for it.

Of course, those who do continue to pay because they realize that it costs money to file grievances, negotiate wage increases and lobby on worker's behalf end up having to PAY MORE because now they have to pick up the slack for their "buddies" who have decided they'd rather let others pay their share which puts creates more non-payers, because let's face it, nobody is going to accept dues that constantly climb to make up for the shortfalls created by the non-payers, until eventually the well runs dry and the Union is no more. The employer is now free to do as he wishes within the constraints of the law (which he can get changed anyway because there's no organized push back now) and wages are suppressed, conditions stripped and rights ignored. The employer wins.

[David in FL]

We have to cut him a little slack.  He is Canadian after all......

[Jeremie Boop]

In my experience, there is very little reason for most unions to even exist anymore. I've never been employed somewhere where I thought I was being mistreated. There was a time when workers did have to band together to get fair wages and benefits, however I don't think that's really the case a majority of the time anymore.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

All I have to say is "credibility blown". Damn shame. ;)

We have to cut him a little slack.  He is Canadian after all......

Yep, and proud of it. One our local "leaders" tried to bring the Right to Work ideas into Ontario and got absolutely destroyed at the polls (sending a clear message to Stephen Harper and his pandering cronies) and I hope Canadians continue to oppose these Corporate fueled policies wherever they arise. I like being able to provide a good life for my children without having to work 60+ hours a week and like knowing that I'll be able to retire with dignity at an appropriate age and not have to scrape for minimum wage until the day I die so that the 1 percenters can put a bigger kitchen in their yachts.

[saevel25]

Yep, and proud of it. One our local "leaders" tried to bring the Right to Work ideas into Ontario and got absolutely destroyed at the polls (sending a clear message to Stephen Harper and his pandering cronies) and I hope Canadians continue to oppose these Corporate fueled policies wherever they arise. I like being able to provide a good life for my children without having to work 60+ hours a week and like knowing that I'll be able to retire with dignity at an appropriate age and not have to scrape for minimum wage until the day I die so that the 1 percenters can put a bigger kitchen in their yachts.

I don't know, I am not a big fan of unions. To me its which ever you think is lesser of two evils, yea? It does depend on the union or corporation really. Certain unions are just glorified Corporations that rather railroad younger members and pad their own pockets with union dues and kickbacks. Go ahead and pay union dues, yet when push comes to shove we'll just throw you under the bus. I know a few unions were the leaders and other longer standing members basically cut deals to guarantee their own benefits in retirement, yet they just shafted anybody who just got hired. That is basically how some corporations work right. All that matters is profits, well profits for certain union leaders the profits are their benefits and union dues.

[Ernest Jones]

In my experience, there is very little reason for most unions to even exist anymore. I've never been employed somewhere where I thought I was being mistreated. There was a time when workers did have to band together to get fair wages and benefits, however I don't think that's really the case a majority of the time anymore.

I've worked in many places that were non-union and was treated very well, met lots of nice people and enjoyed my working environment however, it wasn't until I starting working in unionized workplaces that I was able to purchase a home and build up savings instead of living pay check to pay check. I'm not talking about workers being beaten with sticks or sent down into the salt mines for 20 hour shifts, although the Federal Government in Canada (Stephen "shame" Harper) is actually trying to change the parameters of what constitutes dangerous working conditions. Seems that the fact that Canadians have the right to refuse to work in dangerous conditions without fear of reprisals is putting a crimp in some Employers operations so, hey, let's scrap that particular bit of legislation...it's disgusting disregard for people. Putting profit before worker's safety is abhorrent and that is the kind of fight that the Unions wage because it takes an organized front to take on The Man. Now before you pooh-pooh what I'm saying and try to pass it off as paranoia or whatever, keep in my mind that this is an ACTUAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION being debated. There are people (or reasonable facsimiles) who think this is a good idea, I guarantee you though that non of the people who like this idea are going to be working in dangerous situations, they got "people" for that.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Yep, and proud of it. One our local "leaders" tried to bring the Right to Work ideas into Ontario and got absolutely destroyed at the polls (sending a clear message to Stephen Harper and his pandering cronies) and I hope Canadians continue to oppose these Corporate fueled policies wherever they arise. I like being able to provide a good life for my children without having to work 60+ hours a week and like knowing that I'll be able to retire with dignity at an appropriate age and not have to scrape for minimum wage until the day I die so that the 1 percenters can put a bigger kitchen in their yachts.

I don't know, I am not a big fan of unions. To me its which ever you think is lesser of two evils, yea? It does depend on the union or corporation really. Certain unions are just glorified Corporations that rather railroad younger members and pad their own pockets with union dues and kickbacks. Go ahead and pay union dues, yet when push comes to shove we'll just throw you under the bus. I know a few unions were the leaders and other longer standing members basically cut deals to guarantee their own benefits in retirement, yet they just shafted anybody who just got hired. That is basically how some corporations work right. All that matters is profits, well profits for certain union leaders the profits are their benefits and union dues.

Definitely. Lots of unions have behaved VERY badly in the past and lots will in the future. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, take a look at North American workplaces pre-union. Hell, take a look at what most of the corporations do right now in 2014 when they open a factory somewhere where there are no unions or Employment Standards Acts.

[David in FL]

Yep, and proud of it. One our local "leaders" tried to bring the Right to Work ideas into Ontario and got absolutely destroyed at the polls (sending a clear message to Stephen Harper and his pandering cronies) and I hope Canadians continue to oppose these Corporate fueled policies wherever they arise. I like being able to provide a good life for my children without having to work 60+ hours a week and like knowing that I'll be able to retire with dignity at an appropriate age and not have to scrape for minimum wage until the day I die so that the 1 percenters can put a bigger kitchen in their yachts.

The other side of that is that there are actually people out there who are hard-working (like you) but who would rather be evaluated, recognized, and paid based on their high level of performance, rather than fall into line behind the mob of mediocrity who's only achievement is having been around longer.  If I was a young, intelligent, hard-working kid, I'd NEVER consider working in any kind of union environment.  If I were old, tenured, and lazy, it's the only place I'd want to work.

FWIW, not too terribly long ago I was a senior manager in a construction materials producer.  I paid my top performers MUCH better than they would have otherwise made at our unionized competitors.  The side benefit, was that my poor performers left on their own to work for those same competitors, while their better performers tended to seek me out.

There's not a businessman in the world that won't tell you that the biggest challenge they have is finding quality people, and that they'll do damn near anything to keep them once they do.  There was a time that unions were necessary in this country.  That time is long gone, and the biggest fight that unions face these days is from a young workforce that realizes it.  As a result, unions are fighting for their own survival, and that survival, not their membership is their main focus.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Yep, and proud of it. One our local "leaders" tried to bring the Right to Work ideas into Ontario and got absolutely destroyed at the polls (sending a clear message to Stephen Harper and his pandering cronies) and I hope Canadians continue to oppose these Corporate fueled policies wherever they arise. I like being able to provide a good life for my children without having to work 60+ hours a week and like knowing that I'll be able to retire with dignity at an appropriate age and not have to scrape for minimum wage until the day I die so that the 1 percenters can put a bigger kitchen in their yachts.

The other side of that is that there are actually people out there who are hard-working (like you) but who would rather be evaluated, recognized, and paid based on their high level of performance, rather than fall into line behind the mob of mediocrity who's only achievement is having been around longer.  If I was a young, intelligent, hard-working kid, I'd NEVER consider working in any kind of union environment.  If I were old, tenured, and lazy, it's the only place I'd want to work.

FWIW, not too terribly long ago I was a senior manager in a construction materials producer.  I paid my top performers MUCH better than they would have otherwise made at our unionized competitors.  The side benefit, was that my poor performers left on their own to work for those same competitors, while their better performers tended to seek me out.

There's not a businessman in the world that won't tell you that the biggest challenge they have is finding quality people, and that they'll do damn near anything to keep them once they do.  There was a time that unions were necessary in this country.  That time is long gone, and the biggest fight that unions face these days is from a young workforce that realizes it.  As a result, unions are fighting for their own survival, and that survival, not their membership is their main focus.

Yep, seniority is definitely an issue that needs to revisited and has been in some industries. FWIW, I am a proponent of name-hire practices (meaning the employer picks their people, especially in key positions) because, like you, I think someone should benefit from their skills regardless of how long they've been on 'the list' and I think it benefits the union too because why wouldn't you want the best of your best as the face of your workforce? However, that system has been known to produce it's own abuses too, especially if the one doing the hiring or promoting is just another employee, that scenario has been known to devolve into a bottle-aucracy - whoever brings the most bottles gets the job!

I am certainly not blind to the corruption that exists in the union movement, it exists everywhere that humans do, but again, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The existence of some "good" employers does not offset the need for social representation in the face of anti-worker legislation, lopsided tax systems and horrifyingly widening racial wage gaps. Many economists have come out with studies that claim that the next generation (my children who are 5 and 7 right now) are the first generation in centuries who can expect to have a lower standard of living then their parents. As a daddy, that scares the hell out of me and I will fight it with every once of strength I have.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.

All I have to say is "credibility blown". Damn shame. ;)

You make a very compelling and well formulated point, clearly you know what you're talking about.

[MS256]

Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.

I've had two separate 18 year careers on both ends of that spectrum.

Each had it's advantages and disadvantages.

Union advantages:

Backed on safety issues.

Better pay and benefits.

Better job security (as long as the company doesn't shut down or cut back).

Union disadvantages:

Cost to the company causes shut downs.

Squirrelly union "Strike funds" where the money seems to disappear into a bottomless pit. Somebody's getting rich and it's not the union workers.

Too much job security. (Yep that was in the one above also). Some people need to be fired and they are keeping their jobs, making the same money, and getting away with doing nothing.

Non-union advantages:

Company saves on labor and benefits and keeps the doors open.

Better employees can be paid more and placed in desired jobs based on their ability instead of their seniority.

No ridiculous "rules" about work outside of job classifications. If something needs to be done any employee can be told to do it.

Non-union disadvantages:

Lower starting pay.

Employees can be replaced by anybody at any time.

The "Buddy system" (or some would call it "The suck ass system") is used for just about everything from overtime, to job assignments, to layoffs.

[Ernest Jones]

[QUOTE name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/72760/social-thread-chat-about-non-golf-here/270#post_1041034"]   Right to work states are really, "right to work for less" states. The only people who benefit long term from this concept are employers.  [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/104070/] [/URL] [/QUOTE] I've had two separate 18 year careers on both ends of that spectrum. Each had it's advantages and disadvantages. Union advantages: Backed on safety issues. Better pay and benefits. Better job security (as long as the company doesn't shut down or cut back). Union disadvantages: Cost to the company causes shut downs. Squirrelly union "Strike funds" where the money seems to disappear into a bottomless pit. Somebody's getting rich and it's not the union workers. Too much job security. (Yep that was in the one above also). Some people need to be fired and they are keeping their jobs, making the same money, and getting away with doing nothing. Non-union advantages: Company saves on labor and benefits and keeps the doors open. Better employees can be paid more and placed in desired jobs based on their ability instead of their seniority. No ridiculous "rules" about work outside of job classifications. If something needs to be done any employee can be told to do it. Non-union disadvantages: Lower starting pay. Employees can be replaced by anybody at any time. The "Buddy system" (or some would call it "The suck ass system") is used for just about everything from overtime, to job assignments, to layoffs.

I'm on my way out for dinner so I won't get deep about this but I would say that that is a very fair and accurate assessment. Obviously there are no absolutes in any of this and it can vary from workplace to workplace and union to union or local to local. Something a lot of people don't recognize is the fact that you CAN find reasonable pay and conditions on a lot of non-union worksites is often directly attributable to the existence of unions. We all like weekends right?