Admit It, You'd Like to Be in a Union Too

[daveman]

Have you ever heard of "at will" employment? Meaning a company can fire you for no reason. The At will employment option is an option that exists so that even if you are producing, a hard worker etc etc they can fire you for no expressed reason. I agree companies should fire unproductive workers but to paint all union employees of being "overpaid, lazy, mindless moochers" takes a big ass brush and at will employment shows that you can be productive and all that and a company can (and I know you guys will say they should) fire you for no reason.

So? You don't have a right to work for a particular company.

B-I-N-G-O

Something these extremist lefties choose to forget

To a leftist, "I want..." means "I have a right to..."

 

[daveman]

Have you ever heard of "at will" employment? Meaning a company can fire you for no reason. The At will employment option is an option that exists so that even if you are producing, a hard worker etc etc they can fire you for no expressed reason. I agree companies should fire unproductive workers but to paint all union employees of being "overpaid, lazy, mindless moochers" takes a big ass brush and at will employment shows that you can be productive and all that and a company can (and I know you guys will say they should) fire you for no reason.

I've mentioned the fire at will argument to these right wing dumbasses and they think its ok for a boss to fire anyone at will because its they are the boss and it is their company, if they want their employment to be subject to the roll of a dice that's their business but slamming unions based off bullshit arguments about a handful of lazy people who benefit from it and abuse it? The fact that the business owners have and own more of the wealth is enough of an argument to prove who abuses who more.

you mentioned the fire at will argument but you have no idea why it exists.

It is not designed to allow employers to simply fire anyone they want to for no reason at all.

It was designed to eliminate the firvalous lawsuits from those who were fired....like the union member of my client who was fired for doing cocaine in the warehouse...buit claimed and sued for discrinmination....and thousands of dollars of attorney fees later it was tossed out of court when the security film clip was reviewed by the judge during the first hearing showing him doing the cocaine.

It was not designed to allow business owners to fire productive people simply for the sake of firing productive people.

Why?

Becuase there is no logical reason to fire a productive person and allow the competition to hire that person.

Logic? Foreign concept to leftists. All they have is emotion.

 

[Darkwind]

Companies do not usually fire their best and most productive employess. Companies promote them. Only unions maintain the continued employment of the worst and most unproductive employees which results in an eventual degredation of the whole company.

So using your logic; those who are unemployed were not the "best" or "most productive" or "union" employees? Interesting.

Did you hurt yourself with that stretch?

 

[Jarhead]

Companies do not usually fire their best and most productive employess. Companies promote them. Only unions maintain the continued employment of the worst and most unproductive employees which results in an eventual degredation of the whole company.

So using your logic; those who are unemployed were not the "best" or "most productive" or "union" employees? Interesting.

or...

Victims of a downturn in business...

But yes...the most productive, efficient, dedicated workers are the last to lose their jobs.

DO you not see the logic in it?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Useless fucktards have no arguments than to argue about the exc eptions and not the rule, dickheads.

Why do you fear your compensation being based on your performance?

Why do you fear arguing on topic and use strawmen?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Companies do not usually fire their best and most productive employess. Companies promote them. Only unions maintain the continued employment of the worst and most unproductive employees which results in an eventual degredation of the whole company.

So using your logic; those who are unemployed were not the "best" or "most productive" or "union" employees? Interesting.

or...

Victims of a downturn in business...

But yes...the most productive, efficient, dedicated workers are the last to lose their jobs.

DO you not see the logic in it?

Yeah sure.........

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if a union negotiated a salary increase for union workers that excluded you right wing dumbfucks and left you all earning less you would all be ok with this? I smell bullshit.

I'm pretty sure i could negotiate a higher salary than a union because i wouldn't make outrageous demands for sick, personal, vacation and holiday time.

I would work through lunch, come in early, leave late and do a better job than anyone else in the company. I guarantee you that this strategy is a better one than going on strike if you really want to get ahead.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

It's idiot leftists with their kindergarten mentality who whine about "fairness", dumbass.

Dumbfuck, who bitching about unions trying to take away their power? Rightwing fucktards, dumbass.

Man, you're TERRIFIED that you might have to earn your pay, aren't you?

Because all non union earn their pay and all union workers don't, davetarded logic.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So if a union negotiated a salary increase for union workers that excluded you right wing dumbfucks and left you all earning less you would all be ok with this? I smell bullshit.

I'm pretty sure i could negotiate a higher salary than a union because i wouldn't make outrageous demands for sick, personal, vacation and holiday time.

I would work through lunch, come in early, leave late and do a better job than anyone else in the company. I guarantee you that this strategy is a better one than going on strike if you really want to get ahead.

Sure you could :rolleyes. and all union employees make outrageous demands for sick leave personal and holiday time, this is borderline insane, you sound like the boss not a worker.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if a union negotiated a salary increase for union workers that excluded you right wing dumbfucks and left you all earning less you would all be ok with this? I smell bullshit.

I'm pretty sure i could negotiate a higher salary than a union because i wouldn't make outrageous demands for sick, personal, vacation and holiday time.

I would work through lunch, come in early, leave late and do a better job than anyone else in the company. I guarantee you that this strategy is a better one than going on strike if you really want to get ahead.

Sure you could :rolleyes. and all union employees make outrageous demands for sick leave personal and holiday time, this is borderline insane, you sound like the boss not a worker.

I am the boss.

But i see what some unions get for sick time. Mass state employees get 3 weeks sick time a year.

I would ask for 5 days and a higher salary how much you want to be I'd get it?

 

[peach174]

You didn't answer my question dumbfuck, and don't give me that party line bullshit about all or even most union workers being lazy, get the **** out of here. Would you be ok if a union negotiated a better salary for its members? Would you be ok with earning less and being batshit proud of being nonunion? I know you wouldn't, you be talking the same bullshit you talk now about unfairness, if you truly didn't give a **** you wouldn't complain about unions anyways, you'd mind your own ******* business.

It's idiot leftists with their kindergarten mentality who whine about "fairness", dumbass.

Dumbfuck, who bitching about unions trying to take away their power? Rightwing fucktards, dumbass.

Your forgeting the Cities in Calif. who are doing it too. Even in San Francisco (a very lefty city)

 

[Pho_King]

As far as I know, the only issue taken with unions concerns closed shop laws, and public unions.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm pretty sure i could negotiate a higher salary than a union because i wouldn't make outrageous demands for sick, personal, vacation and holiday time.

I would work through lunch, come in early, leave late and do a better job than anyone else in the company. I guarantee you that this strategy is a better one than going on strike if you really want to get ahead.

Sure you could :rolleyes. and all union employees make outrageous demands for sick leave personal and holiday time, this is borderline insane, you sound like the boss not a worker.

I am the boss.

But i see what some unions get for sick time. Mass state employees get 3 weeks sick time a year.

I would ask for 5 days and a higher salary how much you want to be I'd get it?

You know, now that I'm thinking about it, if you are sick 3 weeks out of every year, you are a drain on My healthcare I am providing. I really need healthy workers to fill the jobs I have. Probably should let a sickee like that go so that they can be on the government healthcare, where they'll get proper treatment at the hands of the government doctors.....don't ya think?

 

[whitehall]

Some of us might be union members and some of us might want to latch on to lavish union benefits but all of us are taxpayers. Don't blame the unions for doing there jobs but on the other hand don't freaking riot when governors want to protect taxpayer funds by challenging municipal union powers.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure you could :rolleyes. and all union employees make outrageous demands for sick leave personal and holiday time, this is borderline insane, you sound like the boss not a worker.

I am the boss.

But i see what some unions get for sick time. Mass state employees get 3 weeks sick time a year.

I would ask for 5 days and a higher salary how much you want to be I'd get it?

You know, now that I'm thinking about it, if you are sick 3 weeks out of every year, you are a drain on My healthcare I am providing. I really need healthy workers to fill the jobs I have. Probably should let a sickee like that go so that they can be on the government healthcare, where they'll get proper treatment at the hands of the government doctors.....don't ya think?

Mass state employees feel they are entitled to their sick time and believe you me they take it whether they're sick or not. Then there's the 13 state holidays vacation and personal days.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I'm pretty sure i could negotiate a higher salary than a union because i wouldn't make outrageous demands for sick, personal, vacation and holiday time.

I would work through lunch, come in early, leave late and do a better job than anyone else in the company. I guarantee you that this strategy is a better one than going on strike if you really want to get ahead.

Sure you could :rolleyes. and all union employees make outrageous demands for sick leave personal and holiday time, this is borderline insane, you sound like the boss not a worker.

I am the boss.

Now I understand your logic,

But i see what some unions get for sick time. Mass state employees get 3 weeks sick time a year.

Envy.

I would ask for 5 days and a higher salary how much you want to be I'd get it?

If you were given three weeks sick leave a year you wouldn't negotiate for less, stop kidding yourself.

 

[Darkwind]

Some of us might be union members and some of us might want to latch on to lavish union benefits but all of us are taxpayers. Don't blame the unions for doing there jobs but on the other hand don't freaking riot when governors want to protect taxpayer funds by challenging municipal union powers.

I've always maintained that private unions are fine. More power to them, and they should be free to get what they can from private businesses, provided that the playing field remains level and does not favor one or the other.

However, I think public service unions should be banned, or at the very least, limited in scope and terms of what they can bargain for. Again, the playing field should be level and no one who takes a dime from the unions, should be allowed to have a say in what contracts are awarded to the unions.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I am the boss.

But i see what some unions get for sick time. Mass state employees get 3 weeks sick time a year.

I would ask for 5 days and a higher salary how much you want to be I'd get it?

You know, now that I'm thinking about it, if you are sick 3 weeks out of every year, you are a drain on My healthcare I am providing. I really need healthy workers to fill the jobs I have. Probably should let a sickee like that go so that they can be on the government healthcare, where they'll get proper treatment at the hands of the government doctors.....don't ya think?

Mass state employees feel they are entitled to their sick time and believe you me they take it whether they're sick or not. Then there's the 13 state holidays vacation and personal days.

Painting all employees from Mass as the same, what retard logic, is that the only way you can make an argument?

 

[Darkwind]

I am the boss.

But i see what some unions get for sick time. Mass state employees get 3 weeks sick time a year.

I would ask for 5 days and a higher salary how much you want to be I'd get it?

You know, now that I'm thinking about it, if you are sick 3 weeks out of every year, you are a drain on My healthcare I am providing. I really need healthy workers to fill the jobs I have. Probably should let a sickee like that go so that they can be on the government healthcare, where they'll get proper treatment at the hands of the government doctors.....don't ya think?

Mass state employees feel they are entitled to their sick time and believe you me they take it whether they're sick or not. Then there's the 13 state holidays vacation and personal days.

Of course. It really is just more vacation time, but if they said we want an additional 3 weeks vacation time on top of the 4 weeks we have, and the 13 days holiday's, the people would revolt. So they have to mislead and lie to get that perk.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Some of us might be union members and some of us might want to latch on to lavish union benefits but all of us are taxpayers. Don't blame the unions for doing there jobs but on the other hand don't freaking riot when governors want to protect taxpayer funds by challenging municipal union powers.

I've always maintained that private unions are fine. More power to them, and they should be free to get what they can from private businesses, provided that the playing field remains level and does not favor one or the other.

However, I think public service unions should be banned, or at the very least, limited in scope and terms of what they can bargain for. Again, the playing field should be level and no one who takes a dime from the unions, should be allowed to have a say in what contracts are awarded to the unions.

BS, I am a federal worker and belong to a union and there is a lot that goes on that you know nothing about, don't make dumb contradicting arguments about level playing fields and advocate limiting public unions because of your envy.