Should able people work for what they want?

[Sallow]

People should be able to bargain with employers, lobby the government and seek redress in the courts.

They can.

Not really..

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

Exactly why is the government getting involved and telling people what they may and may not do in regards to how they deal with employers?

 

[Cecilie1200]

TM seems to think the answer is no. So I figured I'd start a poll.

What would be the political rammifications if we all voted no? Anyone want to instruct her?

If you are able bodied, work your ass off and collect your check on Friday the beer is colder, the steaks juicier, and the toys bring more joy. Dont get me wrong, Christmas and free dinner is cool and all but it is so much better when you bring home the bore on your own to speak metaphorically.

Even with Christmas, you have to work for your gifts. Remember your mom telling you that Santa doesn't bring presents to bad boys and girls?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once your hired your bargaining is pretty much done without leaving for a better offer.
We're all Free Agents.

Not quite. You can always go to your employer and negotiate a raise, depending on whether or not you're valuable enough to warrant one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

should people be able to work for what they want? absolutlely

should people get freebies? depends on the situation and the person

People loose their jobs for all sorts of reasons. For example...

where I live there is a nursing home, and this nursing home had over fifty employees and paid on the average $10 - $12 per hour plus benefits. The owners of said nursing home sold out to another company. This company didn't want to pay those wages or benefits so they took everyone who worked during the day and switched them to nights and everyone on nights and moved them to days. When people started to quit because their schedules were changed they were replaced by minimum wage no benefits having employees. Yes they could have made the adjustment but I would like to point out that this is how the attitude of employees VS employers gets started and is fostered. If there was a union that could not have happened. That is another thread though.

My dad lived in a nursing home for years before he died, and I can tell you that, had his nursing home tried shit like that, my family would have moved him to another facility posthaste. If we had wanted him cared for by unskilled, minimum-wage labor, we'd have kept him home and hired a teenager to babysit him.

I'd be willing to bet that that nursing home lost quite a few residents (those whose families actually gave a damn about them).

 

[The T]

People should be able to bargain with employers, lobby the government and seek redress in the courts.

But the Coursts cannot tell any Employer they MUST employ someone.

What you seek is Judicial tyranny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

should people be able to work for what they want? absolutlely

should people get freebies? depends on the situation and the person

People loose their jobs for all sorts of reasons. For example...

where I live there is a nursing home, and this nursing home had over fifty employees and paid on the average $10 - $12 per hour plus benefits. The owners of said nursing home sold out to another company. This company didn't want to pay those wages or benefits so they took everyone who worked during the day and switched them to nights and everyone on nights and moved them to days. When people started to quit because their schedules were changed they were replaced by minimum wage no benefits having employees. Yes they could have made the adjustment but I would like to point out that this is how the attitude of employees VS employers gets started and is fostered. If there was a union that could not have happened. That is another thread though.

Neither would have it have happened if they had skills that couldn't be undercut by people with an even lower skill set.

Can't get any lower than minumum wage and part time (which all new hires were). This seems to be a trend though. Only hiring part time workers. Everyone is part time working 24 - 36 hours a week.

Yeah, it's amazing how, when the economy goes south, businesses actually start trying to cut costs 'n' shit. It's like they're in business to make a profit, or something.

 

[The T]

should people be able to work for what they want? absolutlely

should people get freebies? depends on the situation and the person

People loose their jobs for all sorts of reasons. For example...

where I live there is a nursing home, and this nursing home had over fifty employees and paid on the average $10 - $12 per hour plus benefits. The owners of said nursing home sold out to another company. This company didn't want to pay those wages or benefits so they took everyone who worked during the day and switched them to nights and everyone on nights and moved them to days. When people started to quit because their schedules were changed they were replaced by minimum wage no benefits having employees. Yes they could have made the adjustment but I would like to point out that this is how the attitude of employees VS employers gets started and is fostered. If there was a union that could not have happened. That is another thread though.

And if they were worth a shit...really cared about their chosen course/employment? They would have adapted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People should be able to bargain with employers, lobby the government and seek redress in the courts.

They can.

Not really..

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

Exactly why is the government getting involved and telling people what they may and may not do in regards to how they deal with employers?

Because the employer in question IS the government. Who else IS there to set the terms of negotiation with government employees, if not the government?

 

[The T]

Neither would have it have happened if they had skills that couldn't be undercut by people with an even lower skill set.

Can't get any lower than minumum wage and part time (which all new hires were). This seems to be a trend though. Only hiring part time workers. Everyone is part time working 24 - 36 hours a week.

Yeah, it's amazing how, when the economy goes south, businesses actually start trying to cut costs 'n' shit. It's like they're in business to make a profit, or something.

Quiet...you make the Union-Mongers in here salivate...

 

[Lasher]

TM seems to think the answer is no. So I figured I'd start a poll.

What would be the political rammifications if we all voted no? Anyone want to instruct her?

No question about it, and if they have children, they should be forced to work.

 

[Sallow]

People should be able to bargain with employers, lobby the government and seek redress in the courts.

But the Coursts cannot tell any Employer they MUST employ someone.

What you seek is Judicial tyranny.

When did I post that?

However, if a Corporation decides that they do not want to employ Americans..then the government contracts with that corporation should end..as well as all the goodies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

should people be able to work for what they want? absolutlely

should people get freebies? depends on the situation and the person

People loose their jobs for all sorts of reasons. For example...

where I live there is a nursing home, and this nursing home had over fifty employees and paid on the average $10 - $12 per hour plus benefits. The owners of said nursing home sold out to another company. This company didn't want to pay those wages or benefits so they took everyone who worked during the day and switched them to nights and everyone on nights and moved them to days. When people started to quit because their schedules were changed they were replaced by minimum wage no benefits having employees. Yes they could have made the adjustment but I would like to point out that this is how the attitude of employees VS employers gets started and is fostered. If there was a union that could not have happened. That is another thread though.

And if they were worth a shit...really cared about their chosen course/employment? They would have adapted.

I'd imagine they DID adapt, in terms of going and finding employment in the healthcare field somewhere that understands that some jobs CAN'T be done by unskilled labor.

 

[The T]

They can.

Not really..

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

Exactly why is the government getting involved and telling people what they may and may not do in regards to how they deal with employers?

Because the employer in question IS the government. Who else IS there to set the terms of negotiation with government employees, if not the government?

The taxpayers sure as heck have no seat at the table...because the idots representing government are on the take from those that they negociate with...so it's a win-win for BOTH parties.

Coercion, and Money laundering...at the expense of the Taxpayer...

 

[Sallow]

They can.

Not really..

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

Exactly why is the government getting involved and telling people what they may and may not do in regards to how they deal with employers?

Because the employer in question IS the government. Who else IS there to set the terms of negotiation with government employees, if not the government?

In some cases yes..and in some cases no. That's not the point.

Make the ability to strike or collectively bargain illegal..is on the whole, Unconstitutional.

 

[The T]

Not really..

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

Exactly why is the government getting involved and telling people what they may and may not do in regards to how they deal with employers?

Because the employer in question IS the government. Who else IS there to set the terms of negotiation with government employees, if not the government?

In some cases yes..and in some cases no. That's not the point.

Make the ability to strike or collectively bargain illegal..is on the whole, Unconstitutional.

And expecting the TAXPAYER to pay their bills for their stupidity is as well...It's EXTORTION.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People should be able to bargain with employers, lobby the government and seek redress in the courts.

But the Coursts cannot tell any Employer they MUST employ someone.

What you seek is Judicial tyranny.

When did I post that?

However, if a Corporation decides that they do not want to employ Americans..then the government contracts with that corporation should end..as well as all the goodies.

How did we get from unions to "employing Americans"? Could you please pick a topic and stick with it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not really..

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ludlow Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

Exactly why is the government getting involved and telling people what they may and may not do in regards to how they deal with employers?

Because the employer in question IS the government. Who else IS there to set the terms of negotiation with government employees, if not the government?

In some cases yes..and in some cases no. That's not the point.

Make the ability to strike or collectively bargain illegal..is on the whole, Unconstitutional.

Horseshit. Collective bargaining appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, nor should it. And don't even consider trying to cite "petition the government for redress of grievances", because that applies to RIGHTS as CITIZENS, not to wages and benefits as employees.

Whether or not an employer wishes to negotiate with unions is a private decision, up to each individual employer, as it should be, just as the decision whether or not join a union is a private decision for each employee. If the government, as an employer, does not wish to make a policy of negotiating with unions, and the taxpayers as the TRUE employers involved in government agencies wish to make that policy, then they do and should have the same right as any other employer. And the government sets its policies through laws. That's how it works.

Taking away the taxpayers' right to protect themselves against wasteful, bloated spending, on the other hand . . .

 

[The T]

People should be able to bargain with employers, lobby the government and seek redress in the courts.

But the Coursts cannot tell any Employer they MUST employ someone.

What you seek is Judicial tyranny.

When did I post that?

However, if a Corporation decides that they do not want to employ Americans..then the government contracts with that corporation should end..as well as all the goodies.

Are you that dense? Companies make their rules for employ as you sign onto in an agreement AS you are employed...or don't you read LEGAL CONTRACTS(?)...You are asking redress of something a Courts have no jurisdiction over...unless it frivilous and taken up by a shark Lawyer...that may or may NOT be a friend to you...

 

[Anguille]

What if you are able to work but so rich you don't have to? Should you still get what you want?

 

[The T]

Because the employer in question IS the government. Who else IS there to set the terms of negotiation with government employees, if not the government?

In some cases yes..and in some cases no. That's not the point.

Make the ability to strike or collectively bargain illegal..is on the whole, Unconstitutional.

Horseshit. Collective bargaining appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, nor should it. And don't even consider trying to cite "petition the government for redress of grievances", because that applies to RIGHTS as CITIZENS, not to wages and benefits as employees.

Whether or not an employer wishes to negotiate with unions is a private decision, up to each individual employer, as it should be, just as the decision whether or not join a union is a private decision for each employee. If the government, as an employer, does not wish to make a policy of negotiating with unions, and the taxpayers as the TRUE employers involved in government agencies wish to make that policy, then they do and should have the same right as any other employer. And the government sets its policies through laws. That's how it works.

Taking away the taxpayers' right to protect themselves against wasteful, bloated spending, on the other hand . . .

Indeed...When you sign on to a company? You are signing onto their RULES for employ...and are at liberty to leave at your disgression...and can be terminated by the employer for breach.