Corporate greed is eating away at good American jobs that compaines want to send overseas. Please share this with everyone to help over 80,000 east coast workers fighting for a decent wage and living. The link to click is below or copy and paste if link doesn't work, and a short summary of what is happening is below the link.

Thank you ALL ! ! ! ! !

please click this link below and send to everyone you know

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/hometown_jobs

Fact Sheet

Verizon Wants to Move Good, Family-Supporting Jobs Out of Our Communities

"Larry Plumb, spokesman for Verizon, said the company's core business of land-based telephone lines have shrunk as cell phone and high-speed Internet use has risen, and Verizon wants to be able to shift more jobs to other lines of business and to call centers in other parts of the country or world, to stay competitive."

-- BNA, Daily Labor Report, 7/31/03


Verizon has been posturing with the media and trying to justify worker concessions by claiming it is in trouble because of the bad economy and competitive forces – but the facts prove otherwise.

Verizon is the industry leader with the greatest market capitalization of any U.S. telecom company – $96 billion – and it's the third biggest telecom company worldwide.

Verizon also tops the industry in revenues, which were $67 billion last year. Its profits were $4.1 billion.

Company success is shown in the way its executives reward themselves. Top execs made $427 million over the last six years. In fact, just as Verizon workers were being laid off last fall, Executive VP Larry Babbio gave himself a big payday by cashing in $5.2 million worth of his Verizon shares. [More info on Verizon's outsized executive pay packages.]

Verizon is winning in the marketplace and emerging in such businesses as wireless, where it is the largest provider, in DSL, data communications, and in long distance, where it is now the 3rd largest carrier.

Now, in current contract talks,Verizon is demanding that union workers give back benefits and job security gains made over decades of collective bargaining. The company wants to:

Drastically cut health benefits by shifting millions of dollars in benefit costs to the frontline employees who have generated Verizon’s wealth.

Wipe out contractual job security protections, potentially eliminating thousands of jobs from our communities and jeopardizing customer service quality.

And that’s not all. Verizon wants to break faith with its retirees and take $60 million out of their pockets for health care in 2004. Each year thereafter these fixed-income retirees will have to pay even more, just when the cost of health care is growing astronomically. What’s fair — health care for 34,500 retired families or $60 million in stock options for the CEO?

Verizon has vowed not to sign a contract with the unions until we give up protections that preserve hometown jobs. Verizon is fighting every effort of Verizon Wireless workers to organize their own union. Verizon has made it clear that it will obstruct union objectives at every turn.

I hate unions.

Unions had their place in a developing society. They continue to be useful at the individual worksite level. Beyond that, they're nothing but PAC's by a different name.

you could only hate a union if you are a CEO PIG, otherwise you earn more than the average worker, have better benefits and working conditions. Only those uneducated fully enough about what unions provide would hate them or feel they are outdated.

I was a union pipefitter for 6 years. I was in the telecommunications union for 7 years making printed circuit boards. I have since gone "non-union" in my desired field and am making much more money than i ever did working union. It is a broad mis-conception that working union brings you more money. The union's themselves are the culprits who are perpetuating this myth. The reason why is greed. The unions themselves are nothing but self serving corporations in their own right. I was die hard union, but i have to agree with ES in stating that the unions once served their purpose, but that moment is gone.

Unions definitely had a place in society but they've morphed into something else completely. Unions completely remove the incentive to work hard and get ahead because they insist that benefits and pay be linked not to productivity but rather seniority. Why should I bother working hard if the lazy ass guy next to me who has been here longer than I will always get first crack at the better jobs and I will always be the first person laid off.

The other thing that really bugs me is that you (union people) expect me to care about your job but you don't give a rat's ass about mine (unless I join your union). I've walked through a few picket lines outside of stores - union workers wanted me to stay away from the store to help support their strike. I've also seen unions picketing non-union businesses and again asking me to go pay more money for the same product somewhere else so that they could unionize the store. If I asked them to make the same sacrifice for me would they? Of course not. Unions want me to sacrifice for them but they won't reciprocate.

If you want to join a union by all means do so - I don't have a problem with it. Just don't ask me for help.

Unfortunately for Americans, this is a common trend among companies. The fact is, labor is plentiful and cheaper in other countries, like India, Mexico, and China. What I wonder is this: if you owned Verizon, and you could choose between 2 workers, and they both did the same job, but one was a LOT cheaper to pay than the other, what would you do?

Because of this, I find it difficult to seriously fault companies like Verizon. All they are trying to do is save money. It's capitalism.

I once belonged to a union also "NEVER, I'LL REPEAT, NEVER AGAIN" Union's only care about one thing and that is making there "top" people richer. The union serves no pupose except to screw honest people. With that said, I also believe the union did help many years ago now it is just another screwing machine in society.

Maybe this should precisely make people think twice before saying capitalism is the best possible system. It obviously is not for millions of people, or at least if not regulated.

How did you decide that capitalism is a bad system from this scenario? And what millions of people are you talking about?

I just mean that, as you wrote, capitalism tends to make leaders take decision on a purely financial basis without taking into account the life of people.
If a good economic system is supposed to make the majority of people happy, this is obviously not the case with capitalism which ends in devastating the lives of millions of people, both in rich countries were factories are closed, and in poor countries were people are exploited in order to produce at a competitive cost.

You would have a good point if the peoples that got jobs as a result were truly being exploited. I tend to think that they will benefit though, since I doubt they will be forced to work. Where there was once unemployment, there will be employment. Of course, you're putting Americans out of a job to do that, but is it so bad that "3rd world countries" are getting jobs? I don't know if I'd condemn capitalism because of this...

All of You who agree witih jobs moving and are anti-union must be independently wealthy or own your own business in order not to support a union. Unions provide better wages, hours, benefits, layoff provisions, and higher pensions than non-union jobs. The only person making less is the CEO because their profits are cut a little bit. Instead of making a billion they might make $500 million. If you can disprove any of this than I will turn in my union card and start a new career

Typical unionist rhetoric. But it looks like we've already debunked your point...

Originally posted by hextall0698
All of You who agree witih jobs moving and are anti-union must be independently wealthy or own your own business in order not to support a union. Unions provide better wages, hours, benefits, layoff provisions, and higher pensions than non-union jobs. The only person making less is the CEO because their profits are cut a little bit. Instead of making a billion they might make $500 million. If you can disprove any of this than I will turn in my union card and start a new career

Uh huh. Can you disprove my points about union workers' pay and promotional opportunities having nothing to do with actual job performance, therefore keeping anyone from working hard?

In any event, and this is directed at Astrapol as well, explain to me why the company is obligated to provide you with higher wages and better benefits? The great thing about free countries like this one is that you are free to quit your job at any time and get a better one. You're free to go to school or to learn a trade or to do things that will help you earn more money or give you more job options. You can move to a different area with better job opportunities. If you don't that's certainly your choice, but I don't see why your employer is obligated to compensate you for the choices you make. Salaries and benefits are set by the marketplace. If you were underpaid the employees would leave and the company would be forced to pay you more. The fact that neither of these things are happening should tell you something.

Out of curiosity, do you complain when your 401(k) or pension funds increase in value due to the greed of the companies whose stock they hold?

But back to my original point. If the union can get you better pay then God bless you. Just please stop asking me for my help unless you're willing to help me out as well.

Rhetorical question - if it's pure greed when companies try to make more money, what is it when you want more money?

Originally posted by hextall0698
All of You who agree witih jobs moving and are anti-union must be independently wealthy or own your own business in order not to support a union. Unions provide better wages, hours, benefits, layoff provisions, and higher pensions than non-union jobs. The only person making less is the CEO because their profits are cut a little bit. Instead of making a billion they might make $500 million. If you can disprove any of this than I will turn in my union card and start a new career

Like I said before the union is a screwed organization. I was with the teamsters and just becuase some lazy arse butt wipe wanted to screw the company and make an 8-10hr trip into an all night trip they would get away with it. Well when I took the lazy arse butt wipes trip I always did it in less then 10hrs. The union protects lazy slobs and cares nothing about doing an honest days work.

Originally posted by LionelHutz

Explain to me why the company is obligated to provide you with higher wages and better benefits?

Precisely, if there were no unions and no laws, the only mechanism of capitalism would not oblige them to anything. this is why I think that capitalism alone is not a good system for people.

The great thing about free countries like this one is that you are free to quit your job at any time and get a better one. (…) You can move to a different area with better job opportunities. If you don't that's certainly your choice (…) Salaries and benefits are set by the marketplace. If you were underpaid the employees would leave and the company would be forced to pay you more. The fact that neither of these things are happening should tell you something.

This would be true in a perfect world where workers and companies have the same power. But when looking for a job, most workers are in a totally unfair situation in front of companies.

Explain me what an underpaid and exploited chinese worker can do in front of its boss ? And do not pretend they have a choice or should set their own business - they just can't !

Rhetorical question - if it's pure greed when companies try to make more money, what is it when you want more money?


I do not care about companies wealth, because companies are not living being.
One will never see a company begging in the street to feed its kids ! But i do care about people, who should be paid enough to have a decent life and should get good working conditions.

I believe the primary role of companies should be to provide society with some services and products, not to make their CEOS and shareholders tremendously rich. Money should be an incentive but not a goal in itself.

But do not get me wrong.
I am not against free market and some form of capitalism. I just think there must be regulations, taxes, social laws and counter-powers (is that good english ?) so that this system benefits to the majority of people and not to a minority of privileged.

astrapol2 has shown how corporations like the ones in China, India, and Hong Kong would quickly fire someone who tries to better themselves.

Getting union representation is the best way to gain the working conditions that you and your co-workers deserve. With a union, you have the legal right to bargain over your pay, benefits, employment security, health and safety, and retirement, etc. A union also gives you the ability to negotiate over company policies that affect promotions, job bidding, layoffs, and many other aspects of your job.

Having a union and the right to bargain collectively with your employer is not some old-fashioned idea that’s time has come and gone. Top executives of every major corporation negotiate their own compensation, retirement and severance packages with the companies for which they work.

Working people in all walks of life join together in unions to gain a voice at work. Union members have a say about pay, benefits, working conditions and how their jobs get done—and having that say gives them a “union advantage.”

In the United States workers are to have a voice per and I quote for the National Labor board

"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to...encourag[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and [to] protect...the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection. '

—National Labor Relations Act

Despite this law many employers strongly resist their employees' efforts to gain a voice at work which then in turn leads to the advantage of a union. A union will if unfair labor practices are being followed will initiate a strike by all workers to show that everyone needs to be recognized.Otherwise it's usually a game of favortizism at work of who gets raises and who gets fired.

Companies have to proft to be successful, and workers have to profit to make living conditions better. Whenever this balance is upset, something has to give.

I, too, have only seen where unions seem to be fighting to force companies to hold on to workers that aren't worth as much as they are getting paid. I watched Sterling Chemicals attempt to foce its workforce to accept a paycut in order to remain profitable. The union force struck. Guess what? Sterling shutdown. They had no choice, so everyone loses.

Precisely, if there were no unions and no laws, the only mechanism of capitalism would not oblige them to anything. this is why I think that capitalism alone is not a good system for people.

It can't happen. No one will work for nothing. Employees who get treated or paid poorly leave. A company with no employees makes no money.

This would be true in a perfect world where workers and companies have the same power. But when looking for a job, most workers are in a totally unfair situation in front of companies.

How so? Is it unfair for a company to choose the best candidate? Is it unfair for a company to only offer to pay what it thinks the position is worth? Is it unfair for a company to only hire as many workers as it needs to perform the job and no more?

Explain me what an underpaid and exploited chinese worker can do in front of its boss ? And do not pretend they have a choice or should set their own business - they just can't

I have no evidence that your average Chinese worker is underpaid and exploited (they may make less than me but the cost of living is certainly cheaper in China!). But anyway, working in a Communist country where the government owns most of the companies is hardly comparable to what we're talking about here. And a union would help that worker anyway. The government would just arrest the union organizers and cart them away.

I do not care about companies wealth, because companies are not living being. One will never see a company begging in the street to feed its kids ! But i do care about people, who should be paid enough to have a decent life and should get good working conditions.

I don't care about companies the way I care about people, but I do care about companies. Strong companies provide lots of jobs and benefits for people while providing goods and services for the economy.

Good working conditions are very important. Many government laws in the U.S. guarantee such conditions. No union is needed for that. The U.S. also has minimum wage laws. (It's worth noting that almost no one makes minimum wage because almost no one is willing to work for minimum wage). You seem to be saying, and it's what I hear from many liberals, that everyone should be paid well no matter what. I think people should be paid based on the skills they possess, the effort they put into their job, etc. I had an employee that felt that she deserved much higher pay because she had obtained several degrees. But the fact of the matter was that she was a terrible worker with poor quality, production, and attendance. She argued that if she were paid better she would work harder. I think she should show that she's worth investing in. The overwhelming majority of her similarly educated co-workers could not have been more happy with their job.

I believe the primary role of companies should be to provide society with some services and products, not to make their CEOS and shareholders tremendously rich. Money should be an incentive but not a goal in itself.

Are you a shareholder in any companies? I don't own any stock directly, but through my company's retirement plans my retirement funds are invested in thousands of companies. Their performance rewards their stockholders - which in most cases are retirement funds such as mine. That's not helping people?

Originally posted by hextall0698
astrapol2 has shown how corporations like the ones in China, India, and Hong Kong would quickly fire someone who tries to better themselves.

This isn't China, India, or Hong Kong. This is America and as workers we have an amazing array of rights and protections.

Despite this law many employers strongly resist their employees' efforts to gain a voice at work which then in turn leads to the advantage of a union. A union will if unfair labor practices are being followed will initiate a strike by all workers to show that everyone needs to be recognized.Otherwise it's usually a game of favortizism at work of who gets raises and who gets fired.

Yes, I definitely play favorites among employees. I favor the ones that work hard and learn and show up for work on time, and disfavor the ones that don't. Why is that wrong?

Again you've spouted lots of union rhetoric and answered none of my questions.

In this society, people should be rewarded on the basis of hard work and results. Since money is a representation of such service, the amount paid must be directly proportional to the effort and production the worker demonstrates. Simply, one should get what he/she deserves, which is exactly why unions pose a danger to this system.

Originally posted by psamtik071
In this society, people should be rewarded on the basis of hard work and results. Since money is a representation of such service, the amount paid must be directly proportional to the effort and production the worker demonstrates. Simply, one should get what he/she deserves, which is exactly why unions pose a danger to this system.

Except that the biggest exception to your "system" does not come from trade-unionists but from shareholders. The people who get the more money are not the people who work but those who own the capital.

And who owns the capital? People, for the most part. Stockholders are individual people trying to make more money. Insurance companies and banks own lots of stock - they have to have something to do with the assets they hold, and it allows them to charge their customers lower rates for services. Mutual funds, retirement funds, etc. probably hold the largest chunks of stock. Those all benefit people directly. Just because these aren't as obvious as a pay raise doesn't mean that they're less valid.

I think what the anti-corporate types fail to realize is that if you remove the profit motive from companies you remove any incentive to create and expand them. Fewer jobs, less tax revenue for the state, and fewer goods and services. Is that what we really want?

OK but that does absolutely not fit with the "work hard" fairy tale. All one has to do to gest rich is… be rich enough to buy shares ! And if you're not rich you may very well work hard all your life and still end exhausted or laid off.

Astrapol, Marx explained that there must be a transition period between Capitolism and Communism called Socialism. Is this what you are suggesting? And if so, which government will be the one to start it? whichever one does will lose a vast majority of it's population due to the fact that people will move to other countries to reap the benefits of the capitalistic governments still intact. This is how the U.S. got most of it's population. The sad truth is that humans are too self-serving to ever add momentum to this idealistic movement.

Originally posted by astrapol2
OK but that does absolutely not fit with the "work hard" fairy tale. All one has to do to gest rich is… be rich enough to buy shares ! And if you're not rich you may very well work hard all your life and still end exhausted or laid off.

In the U.S. there are many programs available to help poor people get job training or go to college so that they can gain skills in order to get better jobs. From what you're saying such training is free in France. If a person chooses not to take advantage of these programs, why is it the fault of the corporations that employ them?

Wait, has the population of the left here spiked or something? I'm confused.

It can't happen. No one will work for nothing. Employees who get treated or paid poorly leave. A company with no employees makes no money
Who leaves? Wait, so the guy that is working for them because it's the only job he can get, will leave, just so the thousands of others get to keep their pay, while he becomes unemployed and homeless? Only if every damn person leaves, does anything change. Some people are stupid, and don't see the problems, some are too afriad that they wont be able to get another job, and then there are the few that don't care. So those few who leave, become unemployed, company doesn't become damaged at all, because somebody else will fill the space. I thought the 1800s proved to us that laissez faire didn't work quite well. (no, it hasn't changed that much, no matter what the media says)

How so? Is it unfair for a company to choose the best candidate? Is it unfair for a company to only offer to pay what it thinks the position is worth? Is it unfair for a company to only hire as many workers as it needs to perform the job and no more?
That I agree with, somebody should be hired by ability only, not because affirmitive action tells them to, or some lazy bastard.

I have no evidence that your average Chinese worker is underpaid and exploited (they may make less than me but the cost of living is certainly cheaper in China!). But anyway, working in a Communist country where the government owns most of the companies is hardly comparable to what we're talking about here. And a union would help that worker anyway. The government would just arrest the union organizers and cart them away.
Cost of living is still not low enough for them to live on a couple of cents an hour. Most companies in China are not owned by the government, if they really have a "government" anyways, more like old guy dictators and their sons being young capitalists. Unions aren't quite liked here either. Quite a few union organizers get arrested, that tends to happen at peaceful protests.

I don't care about companies the way I care about people, but I do care about companies. Strong companies provide lots of jobs and benefits for people while providing goods and services for the economy.
I see no reason for a non-human construct to be cared about at all. People can make it without having a boss. The majority just hasn't figured that out yet.

Good working conditions are very important. Many government laws in the U.S. guarantee such conditions. No union is needed for that.
Unions are needed for that, they got it put in there in the first place, and you seem to be forgetting the states bordering Mexico. Sweatshops and exploitive labour is extensive there.

The U.S. also has minimum wage laws. (It's worth noting that almost no one makes minimum wage because almost no one is willing to work for minimum wage).
Why don't we place a maximum wage law? Wouldn't that solve more problems, because minimum wage is not a very good living wage. Placing a maximum wage on different jobs would keep more people out of the streets. Think about that for a second, I'm not saying a flat maximum wage, more important jobs would have higher wages, like the garbage man should have a higher wage than say, a secretary. A doctor is more important, so they would have a higher salary then the garbage man. People working high risk jobs should get more than those supervising them.

You seem to be saying, and it's what I hear from many liberals, that everyone should be paid well no matter what. I think people should be paid based on the skills they possess, the effort they put into their job, etc. I had an employee that felt that she deserved much higher pay because she had obtained several degrees. But the fact of the matter was that she was a terrible worker with poor quality, production, and attendance. She argued that if she were paid better she would work harder. I think she should show that she's worth investing in. The overwhelming majority of her similarly educated co-workers could not have been more happy with their job.
Can't quite argue with you about the bitch, since I agree.

This isn't China, India, or Hong Kong. This is America and as workers we have an amazing array of rights and protections.
Who created those rights now?

Yes, I definitely play favorites among employees. I favor the ones that work hard and learn and show up for work on time, and disfavor the ones that don't. Why is that wrong?
I think he was talking about those tv show companies in which the sexy woman sleeps with the boss and doesn't get fired.

In this society, people should be rewarded on the basis of hard work and results. Since money is a representation of such service, the amount paid must be directly proportional to the effort and production the worker demonstrates. Simply, one should get what he/she deserves, which is exactly why unions pose a danger to this system.
And you spew anti-union rhetoric. A good real union does not help those who do not try and help themselves first, they don't pick up dumbasses who are too lazy to lift a pencil. Now on the other side, the companies don't necessarely pay off to the hardest working. Super geniouses can spend their entire lives working in coffee shops.

In the U.S. there are many programs available to help poor people get job training or go to college so that they can gain skills in order to get better jobs. From what you're saying such training is free in France. If a person chooses not to take advantage of these programs, why is it the fault of the corporations that employ them?
Wait, what programs give money to a thirty year old man who fucked up his life earlier, and now wants to get back on his feet? None that I've seen, jobs now hardly dont want people without college education.

Original Quote
How so? Is it unfair for a company to choose the best candidate? Is it unfair for a company to only offer to pay what it thinks the position is worth? Is it unfair for a company to only hire as many workers as it needs to perform the job and no more?
Response:
That I agree with, somebody should be hired by ability only, not because affirmitive action tells them to, or some lazy bastard.
:confused: Last I knew Affirmative Action was set in place to lend a hand up to those who needed it. What are we supposed to do? Throw these people into the pits and tell them "If you work hard enough, you might eventually make it out..." followed of course by the infamous "Muhahahahaha!"? It seems only fair to me to bring these people up to a profitable point in our society. What government wouldn't want more of it's people to be better members of society? Are we supposed to just let the minority grow stagnant in a cycle of violence and poverty? Who wants that?

Originally posted by aVaTaR
Original Quote

Response:

:confused: Last I knew Affirmative Action was set in place to lend a hand up to those who needed it. What are we supposed to do? Throw these people into the pits and tell them "If you work hard enough, you might eventually make it out..." followed of course by the infamous "Muhahahahaha!"? It seems only fair to me to bring these people up to a profitable point in our society. What government wouldn't want more of it's people to be better members of society? Are we supposed to just let the minority grow stagnant in a cycle of violence and poverty? Who wants that? By having a fair and impartial hiring process we are thowing these people into the pits and telling them "if you work hard enough, you might eventually make it out"? Is that what you think?

There is nothing fair to a process that makes you hire someone soley on the basis of the hue of their skin. Is it up to the majority to monitor the minority and coddle them? Or is it the responsibilty of the minority to take it upon themselves to work towards making a better life for themselves?

That's what I said isn't it? We have a responsiblity to these people. Most of them are quite unnable to work their way out no matter how simple it may sound to you. Many of these people are raised in a place of violence and poverty. A place where police will not go and are indifferent at best. A place where education in the classroom is inadequate and unnecessary, while education on the street is the most important knowledge for longevity. A place where drugs, murder, prostitution, hunger, and neglect run rampant. You think it's easy to work your way out of a place like this when it is all you know? Try growing up there and see what you think. Forget growing up, try just living in those conditions for a matter of time and see if you even think about "working your way up". Don't be so quick to pass the buck when you have no idea what its like on the other side.

Originally posted by aVaTaR
That's what I said isn't it? We have a responsiblity to these people. Most of them are quite unnable to work their way out no matter how simple it may sound to you. Many of these people are raised in a place of violence and poverty. A place where police will not go and are indifferent at best. A place where education in the classroom is inadequate and unnecessary, while education on the street is the most important knowledge for longevity. A place where drugs, murder, prostitution, hunger, and neglect run rampant. You think it's easy to work your way out of a place like this when it is all you know? Try growing up there and see what you think. Forget growing up, try just living in those conditions for a matter of time and see if you even think about "working your way up". Don't be so quick to pass the buck when you have no idea what its like on the other side. First of all. Do you know me? You seem to think you do.

You have no idea what kind of circumstances i grew up in. Nor do you know what kind of life's suprises I have seen.

People need to earn what they get. Otherwise, where do they get the self-respect or the sense of accomplishment from? If you give people everything they have, when do you stop giving? Im not saying there are not some people who need help. Children and the elderly should have all the financial support that our society can give them. But able bodied adults need to make their own way. There are more than enough programs out there to help minorities in job placement. You can rest your little bleeding heart on that.

No, I'm sorry. I don't know you. I suppose it was presumtuous of me to assume you were not from the projects of the inner-city... Are you? Probably not because you still fail to grasp the fact that even though there are many programs to help these people, it doesn't matter much. Many of them don't know or don't care about them. Their minds have not been trained to care about the same things as most people due to their environment (family, community, school etc.). Look I don't want this turn into a flame war. I was just trying to help you see things from a different point of view.

Originally posted by aVaTaR
No, I'm sorry. I don't know you. I suppose it was presumtuous of me to assume you were not from the projects of the inner-city... Are you? Probably not because you still fail to grasp the fact that even though there are many programs to help these people, it doesn't matter much. Many of them don't know or don't care about them. Their minds have not been trained to care about the same things as most people due to their environment (family, community, school etc.). Look I don't want this turn into a flame war. I was just trying to help you see things from a different point of view. I grew up in a very poor section of inner city Richmond Virginia. When i was 14 years old my father and mother, through hard work and sweat, provided our way out. Since american indians and "white" people are not given everthing in this world, they had to work for it. Both my father and mother are hard working people who relied on no one for a hand out.

And I am sure you have good intentions. I am sorry for the "bleeding heart" crack. It's just that i dont think that giving people things are the answer. It hasnt worked in the many years we have been doing it. It just creates people who cannot take care of themselves and are dependant upon the government to sustain their existence IMO.

Fair enough. (duck & run) Ehhh... there is always the exception to the rule... heh...

Wow, this thread went from very interesting to totally ghey overnight.

"ghey"
What the hell?

I have always been strongly against affirmative action, these people do not need the help and programs when they have already reached an age that it is quite useless, they are already braindead, and too old to change. Less money is thrown into programs that target the youth of those conditions. They do need better classrooms, better education. Unfortunatly the American society prides itself on conformity. Where they live it is "cool(or whatever term they use now)" to be stupid, ignorant, not caring, rebellous to a point of violence. Also, while living there, they learn that you can make thousands a day by selling the leaves of a plant, isn't that neat? If they don't care they wont get anywhere, and no amount of affirmitive action can change that. They need to be taught why it's intelligent to care.

The thread was clearly about unions, and you guys came along and turned this in to some affirmative action debate. Go start a new thread, or go read one of the 20 old ones on this subject. Don't derail a good thread over this crap, please.

Who leaves? Wait, so the guy that is working for them because it's the only job he can get, will leave, just so the thousands of others get to keep their pay, while he becomes unemployed and homeless?

If it's the only job he can get, maybe he needs to get some training.

Only if every damn person leaves, does anything change.

Not true. My company is obsessed with turnover figures because it costs a lot of money to replace someone and the replacement usually doesn't know half of what the experienced person knew.

Some people are stupid, and don't see the problems, some are too afriad that they wont be able to get another job, and then there are the few that don't care.

That's unfortunate, but why is the company responsible for someone's stupidity?

Why don't we place a maximum wage law?

Because the entrepunerial types that keep things humming in this country would all leave for Ireland.

Who created those rights now?

I know it's the unions. Everyone seems to agree that the unions did wonderful things for the workers of this country. The argument is whether they're still needed. I say no, especially since the Democrats cater to labor so much.

And you spew anti-union rhetoric. Yep! A good real union does not help those who do not try and help themselves first, they don't pick up dumbasses who are too lazy to lift a pencil.[b]

These real good unions may exist, but I'm not aware of them.

[b]Wait, what programs give money to a thirty year old man who fucked up his life earlier, and now wants to get back on his feet? None that I've seen, jobs now hardly dont want people without college education.

There are loan programs, training programs and colleges that don't have entrance requirements, etc. Hell, even convicted felons can get jobs.

The thread was clearly about unions, and you guys came along and turned this in to some affirmative action debate. Go start a new thread, or go read one of the 20 old ones on this subject. Don't derail a good thread over this crap, please.
I knew what you meant, you choice of vocabulary words was rather... strange.

If it's the only job he can get, maybe he needs to get some training.
If everybody went and got training, who would do that low level job?

Not true. My company is obsessed with turnover figures because it costs a lot of money to replace someone and the replacement usually doesn't know half of what the experienced person knew.
Only if those turnover figures drive them to fix things, does it matter. And then there, that's thinking about profit before people, even if it may help people.

That's unfortunate, but why is the company responsible for someone's stupidity?
Conspiracy theorists trace that back to the influence companies have on the media.


Because the entrepunerial types that keep things humming in this country would all leave for Ireland.
They do keep the country humming, hobos humming songs in an attempt to get charity.

I know it's the unions. Everyone seems to agree that the unions did wonderful things for the workers of this country. The argument is whether they're still needed. I say no, especially since the Democrats cater to labor so much.
Democrats tend to lie about social issues to get votes, falls along the same lines of Hitler speaking both sides of the line to get everybody to vote for him. As long as companies exist, unions must exist to attempt to cut down on explotation.

Yep!
Everybody speaks rhetoric. It seems now that if somebody says what is generally accepted as the truth where they are from, they are spewing mindless rhetoric, regardless if they actually researched it or not.

These real good unions may exist, but I'm not aware of them.
Thats because the media likes absurd things. The calm good guys are ignored, while morons who screwed up are shown everywhere.

There are loan programs, training programs and colleges that don't have entrance requirements, etc. Hell, even convicted felons can get jobs.
Loans are dangerous. It's what the church, governments, companies, etc. have been using to keep the majority in check for millenia. You take out a loan, you are in debt, debt restricts what you can and cannot do, and places strangleholds on your money. Many loans take more than one lifetime to pay off, leaving the family to pay up. Training programs and colleges cost money, those with the money are fine, the others have to take out loans, now they are held in a stranglehold. Yes convicted felons can get jobs, some can even get better jobs then those whos record is clean.

Loans are dangerous. It's what the church, governments, companies, etc. have been using to keep the majority in check for millenia. You take out a loan, you are in debt, debt restricts what you can and cannot do, and places strangleholds on your money. Many loans take more than one lifetime to pay off, leaving the family to pay up.

The churches use loans to keep people in debt?

Anyway, I've got two car loans and a mortgage and I'm not feeling especially restricted. Statistics show that you make more money if you go to college. Taking out a loan while restricting in the short term leads to being better off in the long term. And loans (in this country, anyway) can only be enforced against the people that sign them. You can't pass them on to your children or parents when you die unless they co-sign.

The churches use loans to keep people in debt?
Notice "have been using" and "millenia". People used to take out loans from the church, and then forced to spend the rest of their misrable lives paying it off. There was also that "pay to have your sins removed" thing, I forgot what it was called.

Eh, I lost myself. I can't argue loans, I never researched the subject...

The theory of people working hard and they will get ahead does not work in the day and age of corporate greed. Per the article below from the New York Observer, CEO's can make bad business desicions, STILL COMPENSATE THEMSELVES, and due to the loss of money lay off thousands of hard working employees. CEO's need to be accountable in this day and age and unions can keep them in check. From Maine to Virginia not one union employee was laid off due to a no layoff clause in the contracts while this bad business with the CEO's earn them more money.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seidenberg and Babbio: Verizon’s Greedy Duo

Once upon a time, a job with the telephone company was the ultimate working-person’s dream. The company never laid off workers and provided a salary that wasn’t exceptional, but was secure and good enough to help build a middle-class life for the employees and their families.

But that was before Ivan Seidenberg and Larry Babbio took over the company now known as Verizon. From 1997 to 2001, Mr. Seidenberg, the company’s chief executive, skimmed $56 million from the coffers in various forms of compensation. His vice chairman, Mr. Babbio, did even better, sucking out more than $78 million. And how did the company fare under their charge? Verizon lost half a billion last spring and wrote off two-and-a-half billion in stinko investments.

It sounds like Verizon’s leaders should have been run out of town. Instead, the company laid off 2,400 workers in New York, and hundreds more around the Northeast, just in time for the holidays. Mr. Seidenberg and his annual salary of $13.4 million, and Mr. Babbio with his salary of $24 million, are safe. No doubt they enjoyed a happy new year.

This latest example of corporate greed is simply outrageous. Verizon’s middle-class workers are losing jobs because of rotten decisions made by the gluttons who run the company and who are suffering not a bit from the results of their own incompetence. No wonder Verizon’s employees are embittered: They understand that the telecommunications business has changed, and they know that no job is forever—not any more. But they’re also right to point out that people like Mr. Seidenberg and Mr. Babbio, and not the middle-class work force, are sheltered from economic storms. They don’t get laid off in bad times. They don’t suffer consequences when they make bad decisions. They simply reward themselves all the more.

In an age when service counts, Verizon executives continue to slather themselves in perks rather than investing in the workers who do the work and maintain the vital lines and equipment.

But can unions fire CEO's? I've never heard of that. That is a shame that whenever companies do badly, lay offs seem to occur. People's lives are ruined over bad decisions, and unfortunately, the people who make the crucial decisions don't seem to have to pay any price. But what can unions do to serve justice?

But can unions fire CEO's? I've never heard of that. That is a shame that whenever companies do badly, lay offs seem to occur. People's lives are ruined over bad decisions, and unfortunately, the people who make the crucial decisions don't seem to have to pay any price. But what can unions do to serve justice?
Unions are what organize strikes, walk-outs, protests, and other money damaging activities. They don't always waver, but sometimes they do, it depends on who owns the company, is it a group of wealthy stockholders, then they waver after a time, if it is just one man, they tend to just say "I got my money, screw you".

unions cannot fire CEOs. They can attempt to put them out of business by striking, but thats about the extent of their true power. I believe only a board of directors can fire a CEO.

P.S. Karan, you think that was ghey... check out the post on homosexual marriage. Now that's ghey!

Here are stats directly from the Department of Labor of why if you do not have the resources to run your own business that belong to a union would be an advantage to you.

In today's world, more than ever, workers need to join together. Instead of one lonely person asking for his share of the pie, by joining with others, employees can bargain from a greater position of strength and demand fairer wages, better health benefits, and a retirement plan for the future. In fact, according to the Department of Labor, union workers make up to 59% more than non-union workers in the same occupations!

Then you'll have rights that non-union workers don't have.

Why? Because a union creates a more level playing field between employer and employee.

Union representation means that you gain rights. Legal rights that you don't have without a union contract. Seniority rights, negoitated wages, leave of absences, negoitated health plans, paid vacations and holidays, defined work schedules, pension benefis, job training requirements, safety requirements, guaranteed overtime pay, greivance procedures, and arbitration by a mediator.

With a union you are under the EMPLOYMENT AT WILL DOCTRINE,Under the employment at will doctrine, the cornerstone of American employment law, in general terms, unless you belong to a protected group, your employer has the right to discipline or terminate, with impunity, you for any reason -- even a bad one -- or for no reason at all. That's why it is sometimes called the fire at will doctrine.

However, with a collective bargaining agreement, you have rights. Management must have just cause for any disciplinary action taken against a union employee. You bargain over wages, health benefits, working conditions and a retirement plan for your future. But, you bargain collectively with the strength that comes from a collective voice.
WITH A UNION, the employer must bargain and pay the wages negotiated.

WITH A UNION, your rights on the job are spelled out and must be respected.

WITH A UNION, you can stop abuses on the job. The union can prevent unjust and unfair treatment by giving you representation on the job and the right to file grievances if you are treated unfairly.

WITH A UNION, you can negotiate for better holiday pay, vacations, health and welfare benefits, and job conditions.

WITH A UNION, you have greater security on your job. Company management cannot fire you without good reason and they must respect your length of service if there are layoffs.

Who Runs the Union?
You do!
You elect your own local union officers.

You run your own local union affairs.

You have your own negotiating committee.

You make the decisions on your own union contract.

You have your own shop stewards.

You decide important policies and actions of your own union by majority vote.

You elect your international union officers.

You elect your own delegates to the international conventions.

You -- the membership -- are the final voice of authority and decision in your Union.

A union is an organization of workers joined together for a common purpose, for mutual aid and protection, to engage in concerted activity and collective bargaining, to elevate their conditions of life and labor; an organization by which ordinary people do extraordinary things.

Now as this forum was created, I believe unions are the only way to keep corporate greed in check.

Just for my information : are there some laws in the USA that give workers a right to control or at least be informed about their companies policy ?

Only if you belong to a union can you demand to know what's going on with a company you are employed with.

Originally posted by hextall0698
Who Runs the Union?
You do!
You elect your own local union officers.

You run your own local union affairs.

You have your own negotiating committee.

You make the decisions on your own union contract.

You have your own shop stewards.

You decide important policies and actions of your own union by majority vote.

You elect your international union officers.

You elect your own delegates to the international conventions.

You -- the membership -- are the final voice of authority and decision in your Union.

A union is an organization of workers joined together for a common purpose, for mutual aid and protection, to engage in concerted activity and collective bargaining, to elevate their conditions of life and labor; an organization by which ordinary people do extraordinary things.

Now as this forum was created, I believe unions are the only way to keep corporate greed in check.

This is ALOT of BULL I'm glad that you have been able to be in a good union, but they are all not like this. Like I have said before I was in one of the biggest union's there are(teamsters) and it was nothing but politics. They screw the company, they screw the employee, and they screw the general public by making prices go up.

Take Joe he works for 8.00 an hr. the union steps in now Joe makes 10.00 an hr. but he has union dues so he is back to really making 8.00 an hr. Who pays for the increase? the company won't(atleast if they are smart) the customer will. Bottom line still remains union's are OUTDATED "period". There have been alot of great things in this country, laws, programs, etc... Why can't the union and people see they're time is done. The union is like afirmitive action it was needed at one time but no longer is. The union it self will not go away because they are basiclly getting paid to do nothing. Must be nice to be the head of a union and make millions to go golfing, of coarse I will agree they are good sales people. I quess if people are gullible enough to buy pet rocks(back in the 80's) people are gullible enough not to see the whole picture.

Teamsters made you pay $2 an hour for union dues? I thought 2 hours of your wages per month was a typical union due. To take your example, say Joe makes $10 an hour. His union dues for he month would be $20. In your example, $2/hour would add up to $320 a month, which would be ridiculously high, especially if you are only making $10/hour.

I wasn't using actual dollars I was just trying to make a point.

Originally posted by hextall0698
Only if you belong to a union can you demand to know what's going on with a company you are employed with.

I'm not aware of any law to that effect, although it's certainly something a union could insist upon in their contract.

And even if a union had such an agreement with the company, there are ways around informing the employees what is going on. Most of the information a company does share with its union employees often times turn out to be wrong anyway. Whether deliberate or not.

It is something that would have to be bargined into the contract. Even if the company was giving out false information to the union and it's members, by law certain aspects of the contract must be held accountable even if the company is going bankrupt, the members are still protected.Example-CWA union members which only accounted for less than 10% of the workforce who worked for Wolrdcom (which I'm sure everyone here is aware of what happened to them) were the only non-management employees who recieved their pensions. Everyone else was left out to dry. Even though they lost their jobs could you image if you were one of the many who worked 20 or some years and left empty due to the bloodsucking CEO's of corporate America. So yes most contracts are just smoke screens to lots of corporations, but gives the average person a sort of insurance policy.

In France the law obliges companies with more than 50 employees to have a "comité d'entreprise" (company commitee ?). Its members are elected by the employees. The company has to provide this comité with accounting information. In case of important decision (layoffs, takeover, reorganization…) the CE has to be informed. It has only a consultative role but it may delay some decisions and make propositions. it also deals with health anf working conditions issues, and various social or cultural programs. It is not supposed to play the role of unions anyway.

The system in France sound alot more worker friendly, than the way things are done in America. In the USA, the CEO do as they please without any supervision. My love for things French has grown now.

About every three or four months I see a picture in the paper of some huge strike by French workers - farmers, doctors, truck drivers, I think police were in there too. France seems to have very militant workers.

It depends on the activity. Some sectors (agriculture, education, transport) have a strong tradition of demonstrating and very powerful unions. Unions are still very powerful in the administration. But in private companies most people hardly demonstrate or go on strike since they fear for their jobs.
But it is probably true that french people like to demonstrate at every possible occasion !

Labor Day is one week away and working families are
gearing up to celebrate and rededicate ourselves to
guaranteeing that every worker has the freedom to form
a union without employer interference. We know that:

+ Union members earn 26 percent more than their nonunion
counterparts.

+ More than 75 percent of union workers have health
benefits. Less than half of nonunion workers have health
coverage.

+ Nearly 70 percent of union workers have a pension.
Only 14 percent of nonunion workers have one.

+ The 10 states where unions are strongest have higher
earnings, better health coverage, less crime, more
civic participation, less poverty and better schools
than the 10 states where union membership is lowest.

That is why more and more of America's workers want
union jobs or want a union where they work. More than
42 million nonunion workers say they want to join a
union. However, employers often harass and intimidate
workers when they join together to form their union.
That is wrong, often illegal and most definitely a
violation of the human rights of those workers. Independent
research shows that,

+ 25 percent of employers illegally fire at least one
worker for union activity during organizing campaigns.

+ 75 percent of employers hire union-busters to fight
union organizing.

+ 78 percent of employers force employees to attend
one-on-one meetings with their own supervisors against
the union.

+ 52 percent of employers threaten to call the Immigration
and Naturalization Service during organizing that includes
undocumented workers.

+ 51 percent of companies threaten to close the plant
if the union wins the election, however, less than
1 percent ever actually do that.

Originally posted by hextall0698
Labor Day is one week away and working families are
gearing up to celebrate and rededicate ourselves to
guaranteeing that every worker has the freedom to form
a union without employer interference. We know that:

+ Union members earn 26 percent more than their nonunion
counterparts.

+ More than 75 percent of union workers have health
benefits. Less than half of nonunion workers have health
coverage.

+ Nearly 70 percent of union workers have a pension.
Only 14 percent of nonunion workers have one.

+ The 10 states where unions are strongest have higher
earnings, better health coverage, less crime, more
civic participation, less poverty and better schools
than the 10 states where union membership is lowest.

That is why more and more of America's workers want
union jobs or want a union where they work. More than
42 million nonunion workers say they want to join a
union. However, employers often harass and intimidate
workers when they join together to form their union.
That is wrong, often illegal and most definitely a
violation of the human rights of those workers. Independent
research shows that,

+ 25 percent of employers illegally fire at least one
worker for union activity during organizing campaigns.

+ 75 percent of employers hire union-busters to fight
union organizing.

+ 78 percent of employers force employees to attend
one-on-one meetings with their own supervisors against
the union.

+ 52 percent of employers threaten to call the Immigration
and Naturalization Service during organizing that includes
undocumented workers.

+ 51 percent of companies threaten to close the plant
if the union wins the election, however, less than
1 percent ever actually do that. What exactly do you mean when you say "undocumented workers"?

Today I drove past a worksite and there was a single, very large guy sitting in a folding chair smoking and holding up a sign in protest of the fact that the workers were in a union. So I again feel compelled to ask why unions consistently expect me to care about them or take actions that will benefit them? What's it to me?

Generally, one is referring to illegal immigrants when using the term "undocumented workers".

Originally posted by es347fan
Generally, one is referring to illegal immigrants when using the term "undocumented workers". If that is the case then i do not understand why this statement was brought into this.

+ 52 percent of employers threaten to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service during organizing that includes undocumented workers

IMO all illegal immigrants should be reported then deported.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? The INS, (or some gov't agency) can lay some heavy - duty fines on companies that are found to employ illegals. If the unions are supporting the illegals in any way, shape or form, then the union should be sanctioned as well.

Originally posted by es347fan
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? The INS, (or some gov't agency) can lay some heavy - duty fines on companies that are found to employ illegals. If the unions are supporting the illegals in any way, shape or form, then the union should be sanctioned as well. Makes sense to me. Unions are only about money anyway. They dont particularly care where its coming from.

without illegal immagrants in this nation, many companies would turn much less of a profit in the agriculture fields and it is know fact the vast population of those employed in this field are illegal, but heads are turned. This is a heated debate all in it's own, but when unions go into these fields to get better working conditions for these people while also making them citizens which would then add to tax income instead of them paying no taxes and adding to governmental debt for the services we provide to them at no cost at all for the work they do which is currently happening, many of the workers who are illegal who try to organize and companies threaten them to be deported instead of trying to help with citizenship, then the workers continue with how they have been working in fear.So who is wrong here - the union for trying for better wages, hours, working conditions, and having these people become legal and start paying there fair amount of taxes like everyone else. or the government and CEO's continue to have a blind eye to these workers milking the system and funds that should go to others.

If you ask me, illegal immagrants work harder for there money than any union or non-union worker ever will, almost at a slave rate because they will do anything not to have to go back to the third world country they came from. Even making $1.00 an hour and living in a one room shack with 10 other people, which I have witnessed first-hand. I feel for these people while also having the highest regard of respect for what they do, because they fear deportation. The agriculture workers and also food service workers, that have become part of the union I'm associated with recieve minimum wage, 50 hour weeks, while paying $8 a week in dues, and state and federal taxes. They feel as though they live like kings, because they are legal, or in the process of becoming, and make $200 a week compared to $50 to $100 working 80 hours at least. These were only local businesses not corporations that have allowed this. As soon as you go on a national chains property they start to deport and just hire new illegals the next day. Illegals are a fact of life in this country as long as there is a demand for there cheap labor which CEO's will always want to increase profits.

Well that makes sense union person wanting to give a break to illegals but to he** with the people that live here legally. What an arse, once again I can see were the union would take jobs away from Americans. You said it(Hextall0698), the union will turn the illegals legal and screw even more of us, real bright. I got an idea, screw the union and try working for your income instead of standing in a line and b***hing.

Oh, I'm with Havok, to heck with the illegals send them back. Just what this country needs some more dumba** non-english speaking f*** heads.

Its just as i said. Unions really only give a sh$t about the money. Doesnt matter where its coming from. Union officials only care about the bottom line. And that bottom line is, get some money so i dont have to go out and actually do work my damn self. Meanwhile, those same officials will play the role of caring about their "brothers and sisters" in the union. What a load of horsesh$t.

Here we have Hextall, who has portayed him/herself out to be a union official in some capacity. Yet he/she stated that not only are the unions actively trying to get these illegal immigrants citizenship, he/she also believes that immigrants are better workers than our american workers. I wonder how his/her local union "brothers and sisters" would feel if they read those words?

As i said in my earlier posts. I worked in the Plumbers/Steamfitters union as well as the Telecommunications union. In each of these unions, it was stressed that american workers should always come first. Illegal immigrants were looked upon as thieves. Stealing money from Americans pockets. They preached this. Now we have Hextall begging Americans to support his/her union that in turn doesnt support Americans? Are you on crack Hextall? Its SUPPOSED to be the Union's job to fight for American jobs.

the unions aren't taking away any American jobs here. these are jobs that Americans refuse to take and that's why we have to get illegals for harvesting seasons. The government has even allowed farms to import more Mexicans this year, because of the shortage of workers, and then they are under this belief they'll go back home after the harvesting season. Not likely to happen. So it's time for you to face the facts that they aren't going away while living off your tax dollars instead of them creating there own tax income in the current system, and bigot attitudes like yours are counterproductive to this nations growth, and we need senisble solutions for these problems union or not. So how about you try to post an educated response to the post on how you would correct it, instead of being the usual uneducated bigot.

So im a bigot for only wanting Americans working American jobs? Have you seen the unemployment rates recently? If you were to make an intelligent post consistent with union policies of our past then i would take you more serious. American unions have always been pro-american worker.

But you calling me a bigot to cover your obvious greed for the almighty dollar affects me not in the least. You act like you care about these people or something. Why dont you be honest and admit you only care about their possible union dues? They are not people to you, only dollar signs.

Remember, none of us came begging you for anything. You did. Sorry if the truth upsets you so much that you have to resort to calling people names. Naw, im not really sorry. Im glad it pissed you off. :D

Originally posted by HaVoK
Are you on crack Hextall? .

LMAO, :D :D I think you may be right though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HaVoK
[B]"So im a bigot for only wanting Americans working American jobs? "

So why are against supporting my orginal post due to Verizon's spokeperson stating

"Larry Plumb, spokesman for Verizon, said Verizon wants to be able to shift more jobs to other lines of business and to call centers in other parts of the world, to stay competitive."

Verizon makes 90% of it's profits in America, but wants the jobs overseas to make larger profits. Why do you not support this example of Americans for American jobs?Only because we are union workers? We pay taxes and support the encomoy even better since we are paid higher wages than most in our fields.

"Have you seen the unemployment rates recently?"

I have seen the unemployment rates and don't you think that 80,000 more people on that line would hike the percentage at least 3-4 points, while also cutting into consumer spending indexes, thus creating even more unemployed.

"If you were to make an intelligent post consistent with union policies of our past then i would take you more serious. American unions have always been pro-american worker. "

Why do I have to go with PAST union policies. Past union policies are what gave unions a bad name. Mostly all unions are regrouping and creating 21st century workforces, which is in a large part a global workforce unionized with a global living wage and benefits.

"You act like you care about these people or something. Why dont you be honest and admit you only care about their possible union dues? They are not people to you, only dollar signs. "

These people are dollar bills. In your pocket and mine. Decreased health costs, because at this moment they are covered for hospital visits of emergency natures by law and who pays there bill. You and me in higher health care costs. Who pays for there education in public schools. You and me. Public Service costs. You and me. Becoming a citizen they pay taxes and hold up there end of the bargin finally.

"Remember, none of us came begging you for anything."

I'm not begging for anything. Just stating that if you have the same beliefs as myself than you should fight for American rights. Which you have contradictied youself with.

"he/she also believes that immigrants are better workers than our american workers. I wonder how his/her local union "brothers and sisters" would feel if they read those words?"

My union brothers and sisters are realists in this day and age. You can have your our opinion, but I feel these people put in more hours and work for the amount of pay and benefits, working and living conditions than 99% of American workers out there. If the union, or anyone else can help them out while stopping the illegals from free-loading off tax dollars instead of padding CEO's pockets from cheap labor, I'm all for it.

And this is the direction America is going. A great read from the Washington Post.

In Wal-Mart's America

By Harold Meyerson
_
Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A25
_
If you had to pick a time and a place where the 20th century (as a distinct historical epoch) began in America, you could do a lot worse than 90 years ago in Highland Park, Mich. It was there, in 1913, that Henry Ford opened his new Model-T plant and announced, a few months later, that he'd pay his workers a stunning $5 a day on the revolutionary theory that the men who built cars should make enough money to buy them.
_
Within a couple of decades, it wasn't just cars that the men on the assembly line could afford. Particularly after the United Auto Workers burst on the scene in the mid-'30s to win successively larger wage settlements for its members, Detroit became the American metropolis with the highest rate of home ownership during the first half of the century. In the post-World War II period, that distinction shifted to Los Angeles, where vast housing tracts sprang up around the unionized aerospace factories that were then the city's largest employers.
_
So in honor of yet another Labor Day, here's a depressing question: Where are the housing booms for the current generation of working-class Americans? Not around factories, that's for sure: We close factories in America today. In the past four years, the United States has lost nearly one in nine manufacturing jobs, including 20 percent in durable-goods industries such as autos.
_
You won't find any housing development radiating outward from the center of the new service and retail economy, either. Ford and General Motors are yesterday's news; the employer that now sets the standards for working-class America is Wal-Mart. The nation's largest employer, with 3,200 outlets in the United States and sales revenue of $245 billion last year (which, if War-Mart were a nation, would rank it between Belgium and Sweden as the world's 19th largest economy) doesn't pay its workers -- excuse me, "associates" -- enough to buy decent cars, let alone homes. According to a study by Forbes, Wal-Mart employees earn an average hourly wage of $7.50 and, annually, a princely $18,000.
_
Just as Ford, GM and the UAW once drove up wages for workers who were nowhere near auto factories, so Wal-Mart drives down wages for workers who never set foot there. Controlling as it does so much of the low-end retail market, Wal-Mart has, with great success, pressured suppliers to cut their labor costs. No other American company has done as much to destroy what's left of the U.S. clothing and textile industry or been so loyal a friend to the dankest sweatshops of the developing world. And unless American unions can find the political leverage to block Wal-Mart's expansion into non-southern metropolitan areas, the company poses a huge threat to the million or so unionized clerks who work at the nation's major supermarket chains.
_
It may just be me, but I don't recall the moment when the American people proclaimed their preference for an economy driven by Wal-Mart to the one driven by General Motors. It is, after all, one thing to live in a nation where the largest employer wants workers to make enough to afford its cars; quite another to wake up in an America where the largest employer wants workers to make so little they'll be compelled to buy low-end goods in a discount chain. Indeed, polling has consistently showed that a clear majority of the American people have been dubious about the benefits of free trade -- but these are the only polls that the political elite, so poll-driven on other questions, has consistently ignored. By the same token, polling also shows that Americans believe workers should have the right to join unions free of intimidation, yet that has not been the case in the American workplace for at least the past three decades.
_
Prodded by a labor movement that's grown smarter, if not more powerful, since John Sweeney took the helm at the AFL-CIO eight years ago, the Democrats have finally started to move on these questions. Most of their presidential candidates now say that labor and environmental standards and worker rights have to be an integral part of any future trade agreements, and that labor law must be reformed so that workers can again join unions without fear of being fired.
_
The relation of union power to mass prosperity is, in a word, causal. Anyone who doubts that should go to the only American city today where there's a boom in housing construction for the working class: Las Vegas. The MGM-Grand, the Bellagio and Caesar's Palace are the Ford and GM there, and a quite brilliant hotel workers union, which has won the right to represent the workers in all the strip hotels, is the latter-day UAW. And the desert rings with hammering and sawing as homes go up for the only low-end service-sector workers in the Wal-Mart economy who've won the living standards to sustain the American dream.
_
The writer is editor at large of The American Prospect.
_
_
_

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

I've got another good union story - fresh out of today's paper. Some guy in a local steel mill dropped a 3 ton weight from his overhead crane onto a forklift, killing the forklift driver. The company fired the crane operator. The union, of course, is appealing, calling the sentence "too harsh." For killing someone?

hextall
I would rather agree with you… But you should definitely post shorter texts. I guess no one reads entirely your posts, while the other ones are much shorter and thus easy to read. Sum up your ideas or the articles you quote, and post a link to the whole thing !

I will try my best to shorten them up from now on. Thank you for the advice.

LOL, to harsh a penalty to fire someone for killing another employee, LMFAO, stupid unions think the whole world revolves around them.

I like the crossed rifles.

thanks, I am an old infantryman, so I thought I would represent.

I believe more info needs to be reported. Was it mechanical error? If so why should the employee be fired. If it was an accident that is blatant, why should he be fired? The employee will have to deal with the emontional trauma for the rest of there life wheter they work for a union or not, but if it was due to neglect, horseplay, or substance abuse, sure the employee should not only be dealt with in a proper manner wheter being fired or not due to the circumstance, but charges brought up against them if they are warrented. It cracks me up we bypass the info just to put a bad name on unions. Deaths happen everyday in the workplace, wheter union or not they need to be investigated and dealt with properly.

Dear Friends,

The Bush administration's cuts in overtime pay and
changes in the rules that are the foundation of the
40-hour workweek and the weekend will soon become law,
unless the U.S. Senate blocks them. More than 8 million
workers could lose their overtime pay and protections
under these changes.

The AFL-CIO has setup a webpage that allows anyone,
union members and nonmembers, to send faxes to their
U.S. senators about this outrageous change. Overtime
work should be compensated with overtime pay. Working
families depend on it. Please click on the link below
to fax your U.S. senators and urge them not to take
away overtime pay from any worker.

click on this link
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/septovertime

Hextall0698 I thought you wanted the imigrants to do the work for you? now you want overtime?

Here is more proof that our leaders are only out for themselves and only do what corporations tell them since they are there puppets.

########################################

2 EPA officials take jobs with firms benefiting from rule change
By Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON -Two top Environmental Protection Agency officials who were deeply involved in easing an air pollution rule for old power plants just took private-sector jobs with firms that benefit from the changes.


Days after the changes in the power-plant pollution rule were announced last week, John Pemberton, the chief of staff in the EPA's air and radiation office, told colleagues he would be joining Southern Co., an Atlanta-based utility that's the nation's No. 2 power-plant polluter and was a driving force in lobbying for the rule changes. Southern Co., which gave more than $3.4 million in political contributions over the past four years while it sought the changes, hired Pemberton as director of federal affairs.

##########################################

It is a lengthy article so here is the link to read the rest of it.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/seth_borenstein/6684143.htm

##########################################

Yeah air pollution is not a big issue. Only when we all will have to wear face masks to filter what we breathe. Any sensible politican would put common sense and the health of a nation into a decision, but not here in America. It's the dollar that does the talking.

Originally posted by mad dog
Hextall0698 I thought you wanted the imigrants to do the work for you? now you want overtime?

I want imigrants to become legal and pay taxes, or leave. But that won't happen as long as Big Brother is making money.

Hextall0698 I don't disagree that something needs to be done about imigrants. We have border patrol, they pick these men/women up then politics comes into play and boom they are on the street. I was listening to a radio show today the guy worked with imigrants he was saying how they use to fly them way into Mexico and drop them off. Then he was telling how they had to switch to buses, but by the time they got way inside the country the bus was empty. Now they just dump them on the other side. Imigration is political not union. This country needs to send the message that illegal imigrants ARE NOT WELCOME. If we just start handing out green cards like MC D hamburgers we will end up in even more trouble.

Landmark Five-Year Agreement Reached

Sept. 4 (9 p.m.): Leaders from Verizon, the CWA and IBEW announced a tentative agreement late Thursday evening as a result of a series of mediated sessions in Washington, D.C., guided by Peter Hurtgen, director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

==============================================

Thank you to everyone who did post there support, and I will be more than glad to post my support to anyone fighting corporate greed, and let it be known my personal support will be UNION and NON-UNION. I am 100% union, but I'm 110% workers rights of a fair wage and conditions, and 200% against jobs going overseas. I hope this forum shed some light on the 21st century views of the union and the plus and minus of working for one. Anyone interested in reading the complete agreement can click on the link below. And once again, THANK YOU!!

==============================================

http://www.unionvoice.org/cwa_unity_verizon/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=13727

==============================================

This is what our tax dollars go towards? We are underfunding the arts, health care, and education, but we'll pay Hollywood multi-millions to let everyone know that new $20 bills are coming out when we'll all be getting them. Real issues need to be addressed in Washington of a million better places this money could have been directed towards instead of television smoke and mirror games.

==============================================

By Betsy Streisand, September 2003 Issue of Business 2.0

Leading roles on TV's hottest crime series. Coming-out parties in New York, Las Vegas, and Hollywood. Movies. Magazine spreads. Leno. Letterman. By the time the new $20 bill enters the flow of U.S. currency in October, all it will lack is a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

At least that's what the bill's agents are hoping to arrange. And we're not talking about its Secret Service agents, whose job is to protect the nation's currency and who have accompanied the new note on its prelaunch publicity tour. We're talking about its Hollywood agents, as in the William Morris Agency. As in the outfit that also represents Russell Crowe, Eminem, and Reese Witherspoon.

The rest of this article is at
http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,,51588,00.html

Underfunding art. Oh please. What types of arts funding is the government not providing that it should?

Also -

I wonder how many of you liberals bitching about jobs moving over seas wouldn't mind seeing a significant number of military personel suddenly be jobless.

Because the military kills people. Also, you can't be in the millitary your ENTIRE life, you have to get another job sometime, just get it sooner. Well, you could be in the military your entire life, if you become a general and then, yeah...

Hey, I have a crazy idea - let's start a new thread instead of debating art funding in a thread about labor vs. corporations.

Funny that the same people seem to do this to threads....

museums, landmarks, parks, and historic sites have all lost federal funding and have been told the states they have to pick up the costs, yet every state has deficits and can't fund them and then close them down or stop them.

Sorry about leaving the subject of labor, so here is some more thoughts about Americas current labor crisis, since unions have been losing a voice in how we do things.

==============================================
Sun-Sentinel
Workers have little power
By Mark Weisbrot
Posted September 1 2003

It's now 30 years since the end of the "golden era" for American labor, which by most accounting ended in 1973. Over the past 30 years the productivity of the people whose brain and muscle create the wealth of the world's richest nation has grown by 66 percent. But the wage of the typical employee -- the median wage -- has grown by only 7 percent.

It encapsulates the most massive redistribution of income in American history, from the poor, from workers, from former middle classes -- to the rich and the super-rich. As billionaire Warren Buffett said to ABC's Ted Koppel last month, "If it's class warfare, my class is winning."

At the lower rungs of the economic ladder, the results of this "regime change" are even more pronounced. Ten million minimum-wage workers -- 71 percent of whom are not teenagers -- now earn about 23 percent less, in terms of real purchasing power.

What is commonly called "globalization" has been a deliberate process of crafting trade and commercial agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization that increasingly throw American labor into competition with workers making as little as 25 cents an hour in places like China.

Contrary to the views of most journalists and economists, these changes are not inevitable or irreversible, nor are they a result of advances in technology or communications. This is about economic and political power, and the vast majority of American labor has little of either. Until that changes, this country will continue its slide toward the economic inequality and insecurity of our much poorer neighbors.

==============================================

The entire article is here
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-18forum01sep01,0,5770709.story?coll=sfla-news-opinion

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE -- A resolution supporting the rights of immigrant workers and a "freedom ride" on their behalf has been approved unanimously by the King County Council.

A partisan vote by the panel, in which Democrats hold a 7-6 majority, was averted Monday when council members adopted compromise language supporting "appropriate paths" for undocumented workers to apply for legal immigration status.

Organizers of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride are preparing to send busloads of immigrant workers and supporters from Seattle and nine other cities starting Sept. 23 to Washington, D.C., and then a rally Oct. 4 in New York.

The effort is part of a campaign for legislation that would make it easier to allow illegal immigrants to seek citizenship, reunify families, assure labor rights and protect other civil rights and civil liberties.

Last week Republicans objected to language in the original draft which said "mass detention and deportation" of Muslims and Arabs had hurt those immigrant communities without reducing the terrorist threat.

==============================================
Here is the entire article

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Freedom%20Ride

==============================================

How is that Republicans have a problem with them becoming citizens that would weed out the criminals that have come into this country while also getting tax dollars, and would rather them have illegal immigrant communities in this country and not disturb them only because we haven't reduced the terrorist threat?

It's because the lobby groups that have these workers employed don't want to raise the rate of wages they pay them. It's organized labor that is bringing up these issues to America that otherwise has no clue what is going on in the workforce of America. If you have a better way to deal with it than the way organized labor is please feel free to post.

Originally posted by hextall0698
Sorry about leaving the subject of labor, so here is some more thoughts about Americas current labor crisis, since unions have been losing a voice in how we do things.

==============================================


What is commonly called "globalization" has been a deliberate process of crafting trade and commercial agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization that increasingly throw American labor into competition with workers making as little as 25 cents an hour in places like China.

Contrary to the views of most journalists and economists, these changes are not inevitable or irreversible, nor are they a result of advances in technology or communications. This is about economic and political power, and the vast majority of American labor has little of either. Until that changes, this country will continue its slide toward the economic inequality and insecurity of our much poorer neighbors.

==============================================

Well who in their right minds didnt know NAFTA was a crock of shit when they were talking about it? And these trade agreements that work toward "globalization" has done just that. It has lowered the average salary of americans while raising other countries. This country was definately sold out. Anyone want to venture a guess which president implemented NAFTA? That's right boys and girls, Billy-boy "I didnt inhale or have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton. Imagine that.

Not only did he sell our nuclear/military secrets to the chinese, he sold out the American worker as well. And you democrats STILL think he was a good president? LMAO.