Right To Work...

[DrDoomNGloom]

Let me ask this question:

In a Right to Work company, are the non-union workers compensated equally with the union workers?

Yep, by law they have to be ......................

They don't have to pay dues and there can be no concessions against them for refusal to pay union dues or join the union.................

I don't know what law you're referring to.

Union have strict rules for there workers, where those rules don't have to apply for non union workers. For instance, how overtime is distributed among workers. Union negotiate of maximum production output. Non union doesn't have to follow it.

Even union workers are not paid the same wage, for instance UAW Tier 1 and Tier 2 scheme.

Dude you are another one who's English is broken, we have been basically on the same side, if you have any inkling of intelligence then you might want to back off me.

As for the law, the quote from clean references a "right to work shop" and the question was do non union workers get paid the same as union workers.

So since you are retarded let me spell it out for you, RIGHT TO WORK JOBS / STATES must pay non union workers the same scale as union workers and can not make them pay dues or penalize them.

Do you fucking understand that??

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't live in a right to work state. I don't work with scabs.

Seems that more states side with scabs then with unions.

You understand you're in minority, right?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You are an angry individual. Must be you are not happy with having to pay dues and go along and have lazy good for nothings making the same money as you doing very little work and still getting credit.

How did you come up with that?

I don't live in a right to work state. I don't work with scabs.

You know, I worked unions for six years, and nothing disgusted me more than hearing my union "brothers" referring to non-union workers as "scabs' - especially when most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

you have to be a legit worker not a strike breaker......

What? What do you mean?

maybe you should explain what you mean....a scab is someone who crosses the picket line..... i would like to know what you meant by ...
"scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people... by crossing that line they are not showing any respect for that union you say they would love to be in....and what did you mean by the right people?....if you are working in the field that that Union covers....you go down to the Hall and inquire about signing up....

Harry you dumb fuck, the man is saying that scabs would have been union members but they did not have the proper connections to get in the union[most union's are good ole boy unions and require you have someone vouch for you before you are accepted]" ...........................

 

[boedicca]

I'll note three things in general about the RTW states

1. Job creation is higher
2. Housing is more affordable
3. The Income Equality Gap is less severe

Right to Work States National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

 

[boedicca]

You didn't have to tell us you hate Americans, we already knew.

It makes perfect sense-----perfect sense for the Corpratacracy to take away workers protection to get a day of rest (even God had to rest). Right To Work laws could lower family income by over $5K/yr FORCING workers to accept no rest this week, then no rest next week, then no rest the week after that, then no rest... -- and that just to keep from drowning in debt.

Walker would have a case to make to GOP voters if these policies yielded higher job growth. They haven't. Bloomberg economic analyst Christopher Flavelle wrote recently that as measured by improvement in "the living standards of the people he represents... Walker's tenure falls somewhere between lackluster and a failure." ~ Michael Hiltzik​

Could Wisconsin's Scott Walker now abolish the weekend?
Michael Hiltzik
March 20, 2015

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a leading aspirant for the Republican nomination for president, made his state the 25th "right-to-work" state in the nation on March 9 when he signed a measure passed by the Republican-controlled legislature.

He may soon get another crack at a worker-unfriendly law: Legislators have introduced a bill to abolish employees' legal right to at least one day off per week.

State law currently allows factory or retail employees to work seven days or more in a row for a limited period, but they and their employer have to jointly petition the Department of Workforce Development for a waiver. These petitions apparently number a couple of hundred a year. The new proposal would allow workers to "voluntarily choose" to work without a day of rest. The state agency wouldn't have a say.

It can't be a secret what "voluntarily" really means in this context. As Marquette University law professor Paul Secunda told the Nation, the measure "completely ignores the power dynamic in the workplace, where workers often have a proverbial gun to the head." Workers will know that if the boss demands it, they'll be volunteering or else.

<snip>

Since Walker took office, Wisconsin's economic performance has ranked a dismal 35th in Bloomberg's economic index of states. Private sector job growth lags behind such neighboring states as Minnesota and Michigan -- not to mention California, where labor and fiscal policies are at the opposite pole from Walker's. Bloomberg's index of share values for Wisconsin-based public companies shows they lag well behind Iowa, Minnesota and the median state. (See accompanying graphics package for details.)

This week brought another dose of bad news for Walker: his state fell to 38th in the nation in job growth for the year ended Sept. 30, 2014, at 1.16%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (For comparison, California ranked seventh, at 3.1%.)

Wisconsin's budget situation is dire, with state tax revenue increasing at a fraction of the rate of the median state--4% vs. 20%--in 2011-14. In February, the state announced it would delay a scheduled $108-million principal payment on its debt. Under Walker, Wisconsinites seem to be facing a double-whammy--lousy performance at the state level, and a continuing assault on their household income.


Myths And Facts About "Right-To-Work" Laws

Are workers in states without right-to-work laws forced to join unions?

Do right-to-work laws lead to higher wages and benefits?

Will right-to-work laws lead to lower unemployment in states that adopt them?

Do right-to-work laws protect workers from supporting political activities they disagree with?

.

Anyone who disagrees with the union mentality hates America? Good luck with that, wacko.

In order to get fair wages for the workers...Yes, people have to strong arm and do things that in a perfect world we wouldn't need to do.

Joining together to negotiate a better agreement for everyone is not strong arming anyone. A single individual negotiating against a corporation has no power at all, but a group standing together can demand and receive fairness. That's why the right hates unions. Their corporate owners don't like it when the workers expect fairness.

Holy crap you are dilution all today fool

I suppose one of is delusional all of today. It's not me.

Which reminds me, time to post the reminder:

 

[BULLDOG]

Anyone who disagrees with the union mentality hates America? Good luck with that, wacko.

In order to get fair wages for the workers...Yes, people have to strong arm and do things that in a perfect world we wouldn't need to do.

Joining together to negotiate a better agreement for everyone is not strong arming anyone. A single individual negotiating against a corporation has no power at all, but a group standing together can demand and receive fairness. That's why the right hates unions. Their corporate owners don't like it when the workers expect fairness.

Holy crap you are dilution all today fool

I suppose one of is delusional all of today. It's not me.

Which reminds me, time to post the reminder:

View attachment 38718

Come on. You can do better than that can't you? I guess it's as good as can be expected for a teabagger such as yourself though.

 

[boedicca]

In order to get fair wages for the workers...Yes, people have to strong arm and do things that in a perfect world we wouldn't need to do.

Joining together to negotiate a better agreement for everyone is not strong arming anyone. A single individual negotiating against a corporation has no power at all, but a group standing together can demand and receive fairness. That's why the right hates unions. Their corporate owners don't like it when the workers expect fairness.

Holy crap you are dilution all today fool

I suppose one of is delusional all of today. It's not me.

Which reminds me, time to post the reminder:

View attachment 38718

Come on. You can do better than that can't you? I guess it's as good as can be expected for a teabagger such as yourself though.

You really want it. You know you do.

 

[dblack]

You are an angry individual. Must be you are not happy with having to pay dues and go along and have lazy good for nothings making the same money as you doing very little work and still getting credit.

How did you come up with that?

I don't live in a right to work state. I don't work with scabs.

You know, I worked unions for six years, and nothing disgusted me more than hearing my union "brothers" referring to non-union workers as "scabs' - especially when most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

you have to be a legit worker not a strike breaker......

What? What do you mean?

maybe you should explain what you mean....a scab is someone who crosses the picket line..... i would like to know what you meant by ...
"scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people... by crossing that line they are not showing any respect for that union you say they would love to be in....and what did you mean by the right people?....if you are working in the field that that Union covers....you go down to the Hall and inquire about signing up....

It was very difficult to get in our union if you didn't have sponsorhip of some kind. I was a "legacy" - my dad and both my brothers were already members - or I'd have never got in.

 

[initforme]

We are truly in an era where a company isn't looking to keep its best employees, as they are a burden to the company. With the decline in unions, thank god for laws that protect workers and for such things as FMLA and things like that which help the company and the employee. Without them, rest assured, guaranteed, companies would There are a few lucky workers who are in demand that can walk off the job when they are most needed and step into another one. We need more of these workers doing that. No 2 weeks notice, nothing, Don't show up unless you get what you want.

 

[Harry Dresden]

How did you come up with that?

I don't live in a right to work state. I don't work with scabs.

You know, I worked unions for six years, and nothing disgusted me more than hearing my union "brothers" referring to non-union workers as "scabs' - especially when most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

you have to be a legit worker not a strike breaker......

What? What do you mean?

maybe you should explain what you mean....a scab is someone who crosses the picket line..... i would like to know what you meant by ...
"scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people... by crossing that line they are not showing any respect for that union you say they would love to be in....and what did you mean by the right people?....if you are working in the field that that Union covers....you go down to the Hall and inquire about signing up....

Harry you dumb fuck, the man is saying that scabs would have been union members but they did not have the proper connections to get in the union[most union's are good ole boy unions and require you have someone vouch for you before you are accepted]" ...........................

hey well im sorry dipshit....every Union i know of including mine are not like that.....maybe in your state its like that....out here it aint....i know a bunch of teamsters....aint like that....brother in laws a plumber....he said aint like that.....guy next door is an electrician....aint like that........if it is like that in other parts of the State ,then thats the way it is there....but not around here...so go and eat shit doc.....

 

[Jackson]

Unions did a great job in bringing down Detroit.

 

[boedicca]

Unions became a destructive force when the proper causes of working conditions, hours, and pay for hours worked were covered. All of these are now covered by laws and regulations. Today, unions are basically political rent-seeking machines.

 

[Harry Dresden]

How did you come up with that?

I don't live in a right to work state. I don't work with scabs.

You know, I worked unions for six years, and nothing disgusted me more than hearing my union "brothers" referring to non-union workers as "scabs' - especially when most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

most of the "scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people.

you have to be a legit worker not a strike breaker......

What? What do you mean?

maybe you should explain what you mean....a scab is someone who crosses the picket line..... i would like to know what you meant by ...
"scabs" would have loved to be in the union but couldn't get in because they didn't know the right people... by crossing that line they are not showing any respect for that union you say they would love to be in....and what did you mean by the right people?....if you are working in the field that that Union covers....you go down to the Hall and inquire about signing up....

It was very difficult to get in our union if you didn't have sponsorhip of some kind. I was a "legacy" - my dad and both my brothers were already members - or I'd have never got in.

thanks for explaining what your union does,sounds like they dont want new members.....everyone i know who is in a Union got in with no problems.....and i know lots of Union guys right and left in many different professions....

 

[regent]

Most of us belong to organizations of some type. The AMA, American Legion, American Legion, NRA or other. We join these organizations to enhance some benefit and because there is strength in numbers. The sad thing is it took so many years and so many battles to make unions legal for working Americans, and now so many seem to have forgotten.

 

[dblack]

Most of us belong to organizations of some type. The AMA, American Legion, American Legion, NRA or other. We join these organizations to enhance some benefit and because there is strength in numbers. The sad thing is it took so many years and so many battles to make unions legal for working Americans, and now so many seem to have forgotten.

I don't think they've forgotten, so much as grown to resent, what the labor movement ultimately became. Much like what happened with the civil rights movement, what began as legitimate and necessary fight for equal rights, turned into a lobby for special privilege.

 

[TooTall]

Government is supposed to be NEUTRAL, ie, neither favoring unionism nor "right to work" laws..

It should be understood that in , what is supposed to be a free nation, individuals ought to have a right to join or not join a union.

They have a right to work if the employer chooses to enter in an employment relationship with the individual. But a "right to work" law is a regulatory statute and should be opposed by all freemen.

Dude is your English not that good??
You really don't seem to have a clue about what we are talking about............

Right to Work, Union Shops, and Union Dues
Can employees be required to join a union or pay dues?

If you take a job that is covered by a contract between the employer and a labor union, a representative of the union will typically approach you about membership requirements shortly after you are hired.

Workers have the right, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), to refuse to join a union. However, some collective bargaining agreements -- the contracts between the employer and the union -- require a company to employ only union workers to do certain jobs. One major reason unions want these contracts is to share the burden of the union's work. The union is required to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership. Requiring everyone who gets the benefit of the contract to be a union member solves the problem of so-called "free riders," who reap the windfall of the union's work but don't pay the price.

Generally, a company can't require a worker to become a full union member as a condition of employment, but the worker may have to pay at least some portion of union dues, depending on the basis of his or her objection to the union and the laws of the state where the employer is located.

Unionized work situations generally are either open shop or agency shop. The type of shop that exists within a unionized bargaining unit will be spelled out in the contract between the union representing that unit and the employer. Ask the union representative for a copy of the contract governing your job before you sign up for union membership.

Union Security Agreements and "Right to Work" Laws
The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

However, the NLRA also allows states to prohibit these agreements, and many states have done so. In these states, workers who decide not to join the union cannot be required to pay any fees to the union, nor can they be fired or otherwise penalized for failing to do so. These statutes, called "right to work" laws, basically require that every unionized workplace be an "open shop," in which workers are free to choose whether or not to join or support the union.

Right to Work Union Shops and Union Dues Nolo.com

So to be clear here, it simply gives the non union worker the ability to work a job that union workers are working at the same rate without having to pay "dues" or union fees ....................

So learn fucking English, or get a different line of shit .................................

The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

What point are you trying to make??
The clause you reference deals with National Labor Relations act, has nothing to do with "right to work statues" except for the fact that those are covered in the act also. The paragraph which you quote speaks of "closed or union shop" to work in these shops unions due's or agency fees must be paid regardless of an individual's feeling's about unions or paying dues.

The "right to work act or statues", that 24 of the 50 states now have, prohibit that type of extortionist / forced paying of dues by similarly skilled workers who refuse to pay union dues or agency fees.

What part of this is not fucking sinking in??

RIGHT TO WORK LAWS KEEP UNIONS FROM BULLYING NON UNION WORKERS??

Government is supposed to be NEUTRAL, ie, neither favoring unionism nor "right to work" laws..

It should be understood that in , what is supposed to be a free nation, individuals ought to have a right to join or not join a union.

They have a right to work if the employer chooses to enter in an employment relationship with the individual. But a "right to work" law is a regulatory statute and should be opposed by all freemen.

Dude is your English not that good??
You really don't seem to have a clue about what we are talking about............

Right to Work, Union Shops, and Union Dues
Can employees be required to join a union or pay dues?

If you take a job that is covered by a contract between the employer and a labor union, a representative of the union will typically approach you about membership requirements shortly after you are hired.

Workers have the right, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), to refuse to join a union. However, some collective bargaining agreements -- the contracts between the employer and the union -- require a company to employ only union workers to do certain jobs. One major reason unions want these contracts is to share the burden of the union's work. The union is required to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership. Requiring everyone who gets the benefit of the contract to be a union member solves the problem of so-called "free riders," who reap the windfall of the union's work but don't pay the price.

Generally, a company can't require a worker to become a full union member as a condition of employment, but the worker may have to pay at least some portion of union dues, depending on the basis of his or her objection to the union and the laws of the state where the employer is located.

Unionized work situations generally are either open shop or agency shop. The type of shop that exists within a unionized bargaining unit will be spelled out in the contract between the union representing that unit and the employer. Ask the union representative for a copy of the contract governing your job before you sign up for union membership.

Union Security Agreements and "Right to Work" Laws
The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

However, the NLRA also allows states to prohibit these agreements, and many states have done so. In these states, workers who decide not to join the union cannot be required to pay any fees to the union, nor can they be fired or otherwise penalized for failing to do so. These statutes, called "right to work" laws, basically require that every unionized workplace be an "open shop," in which workers are free to choose whether or not to join or support the union.

Right to Work Union Shops and Union Dues Nolo.com

So to be clear here, it simply gives the non union worker the ability to work a job that union workers are working at the same rate without having to pay "dues" or union fees ....................

So learn fucking English, or get a different line of shit .................................

The NLRA allows a union and an employer to enter into a contract called a "union security agreement." Although these contracts cannot require a worker to join a union, they can require workers to make "agency fee" payments to the union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. An employer that enters into one of these agreements is required to fire workers who don't either join the union or make the payments called for in the contract. Employers with this type of contract are called "agency shops."

What point are you trying to make??
The clause you reference deals with National Labor Relations act, has nothing to do with "right to work statues" except for the fact that those are covered in the act also. The paragraph which you quote speaks of "closed or union shop" to work in these shops unions due's or agency fees must be paid regardless of an individual's feeling's about unions or paying dues.

The "right to work act or statues", that 24 of the 50 states now have, prohibit that type of extortionist / forced paying of dues by similarly skilled workers who refuse to pay union dues or agency fees.

What part of this is not fucking sinking in??

RIGHT TO WORK LAWS KEEP UNIONS FROM BULLYING NON UNION WORKERS??

I agree that right to work laws are good having had hourly jobs in states with and without right to work laws. Many years ago I worked at the Aerojet General Nucleonics R&D plant in San Ramon where we built the components that go into our experimental Nuclear reactor in Idaho. When I had worked there 29 days the Shop Steward told me that I had to join the Union. When I asked him what would happen if I refused, he told me tomorrow would be my last day of employment. I joined under protest to keep my job.

 

[SwimExpert]

the burden of improving workers wages must be upon the individual to assertively pursue the best wages they can possibly achieve, and that the view that employers will, or ought to, simply hand over the better wages is foolish and unproductive.

That isn't how relationships work. Relationships are mutually beneficial agreements. That means that both workers and management have to get to the right price. Your view that it's just on the employee is just wrong. Just like if you said it was all on the employer would be wrong. I want motivated employees, it's a two way street. A few examples from my own business:

1) My senior production guy isn't leaving. He's well compensated for what he does. We both know that. he also likes it here. I give him small, infrequent raises. He's fine with that, he knows he makes the market max. However, I do pay him regular bonuses to keep him motivated. They aren't huge, but they are something and they are regular. He is constantly fixing equipment himself saving the company a lot of money. He's already motivated and he would be anyway, but that extra bit keeps him constantly going the extra mile and he knows that he's appreciated.

2) I have a graphic designer who has always been talented. He's in his 30s and went to an OK school. He has an OK background. His manager and I kept telling him in review after review that he's very talented and he has a good attitude, everyone likes working with him. But he is capable of so much more, we felt like he was mailing it in. He was getting tiny raises and no bonuses. He wanted more pay, we said we were good with paying more, but he has to start earning it. About a year and a half ago, he just flipped a switch. He started being the last to leave instead of the first, he learned new tools, his productivity skyrocketed. He's keeping it up, suddenly his raises got larger and he gets regular bonuses. We are going into web as a new initiative and he's our main web designer.

3) I had two customer service people who sucked. They had bad attitudes with employees, they gave customers whatever they asked for whether it was reasonable or not. After several reviews, I cut their hours in half and as they were now part time employees I eliminated their benefits. When they didn't improve, I fired them both the same day. Their co-workers said wow, the job got easier with them both gone

4) It's the job of customer service people to provide quotes for customers who contact the business, I don't pay them commissions like sales people. One customer service person brought a customer in though they knew from a prior job and they stuck with us. I paid them a bonus. Then they and two other customer service people started bringing in other occasional customers from outside. One got a menu order from a restaurant they ate in. I kept paying them bonuses, they keep looking for new customers to bring in.

5) I bought a promo business, folded it into my business and hired the prior owner. She had all the relationships and is a natural salesman. I agreed to minimum pay, which was supposed to be temporary, while she built up the customer base. Two years later she hadn't built up sales to earn what she was paid with commissions. She was dogging it. I put her on a plan that her pay would converge to her earnings over the next 18 months. She was welcome to find another job, but I wasn't paying her what she wasn't earning. She stopped screwing around and rebuilt her sales to earn her salary and more.

The point is profit. When you say determining value isn't easy, no shit Dick Tracy. Why are most people not in management? When you say some employers only care about cost, again, no shit. You can find people bad at everything, they are the ones that lose.

Successful companies treat their employees as partners. We actually do care what we pay them. But overpaying them is bad business, as is demotivating them with poor pay structures or low pay. The idea that it's the employee versus the company for pay is just wrong. You either are a bad manager or work for bad managers if you don't know that

*yawn*

Cool story, bro. Maybe one day you'll get on track and offer a reply that's actually relevant. I won't hold my breath, though, as it seems to be over your head.

 

[kaz]

the burden of improving workers wages must be upon the individual to assertively pursue the best wages they can possibly achieve, and that the view that employers will, or ought to, simply hand over the better wages is foolish and unproductive.

That isn't how relationships work. Relationships are mutually beneficial agreements. That means that both workers and management have to get to the right price. Your view that it's just on the employee is just wrong. Just like if you said it was all on the employer would be wrong. I want motivated employees, it's a two way street. A few examples from my own business:

1) My senior production guy isn't leaving. He's well compensated for what he does. We both know that. he also likes it here. I give him small, infrequent raises. He's fine with that, he knows he makes the market max. However, I do pay him regular bonuses to keep him motivated. They aren't huge, but they are something and they are regular. He is constantly fixing equipment himself saving the company a lot of money. He's already motivated and he would be anyway, but that extra bit keeps him constantly going the extra mile and he knows that he's appreciated.

2) I have a graphic designer who has always been talented. He's in his 30s and went to an OK school. He has an OK background. His manager and I kept telling him in review after review that he's very talented and he has a good attitude, everyone likes working with him. But he is capable of so much more, we felt like he was mailing it in. He was getting tiny raises and no bonuses. He wanted more pay, we said we were good with paying more, but he has to start earning it. About a year and a half ago, he just flipped a switch. He started being the last to leave instead of the first, he learned new tools, his productivity skyrocketed. He's keeping it up, suddenly his raises got larger and he gets regular bonuses. We are going into web as a new initiative and he's our main web designer.

3) I had two customer service people who sucked. They had bad attitudes with employees, they gave customers whatever they asked for whether it was reasonable or not. After several reviews, I cut their hours in half and as they were now part time employees I eliminated their benefits. When they didn't improve, I fired them both the same day. Their co-workers said wow, the job got easier with them both gone

4) It's the job of customer service people to provide quotes for customers who contact the business, I don't pay them commissions like sales people. One customer service person brought a customer in though they knew from a prior job and they stuck with us. I paid them a bonus. Then they and two other customer service people started bringing in other occasional customers from outside. One got a menu order from a restaurant they ate in. I kept paying them bonuses, they keep looking for new customers to bring in.

5) I bought a promo business, folded it into my business and hired the prior owner. She had all the relationships and is a natural salesman. I agreed to minimum pay, which was supposed to be temporary, while she built up the customer base. Two years later she hadn't built up sales to earn what she was paid with commissions. She was dogging it. I put her on a plan that her pay would converge to her earnings over the next 18 months. She was welcome to find another job, but I wasn't paying her what she wasn't earning. She stopped screwing around and rebuilt her sales to earn her salary and more.

The point is profit. When you say determining value isn't easy, no shit Dick Tracy. Why are most people not in management? When you say some employers only care about cost, again, no shit. You can find people bad at everything, they are the ones that lose.

Successful companies treat their employees as partners. We actually do care what we pay them. But overpaying them is bad business, as is demotivating them with poor pay structures or low pay. The idea that it's the employee versus the company for pay is just wrong. You either are a bad manager or work for bad managers if you don't know that

*yawn*

Cool story, bro. Maybe one day you'll get on track and offer a reply that's actually relevant. I won't hold my breath, though, as it seems to be over your head.

Over your head, huh Opie? What isn't?