Ok, let's talk unions again

[IBCoupe]

Makes sense. No use in the company fighting the employees if the employees have no control over the contract.

[AppleBonker]

No one is forcing them to sign anything. No one is forcing them to work there either.

^ that is one level of control?

[IBCoupe]

Which means the employer gets the employees willing to accept his or her terms. Rule still applies: without a union, an employer can get practically anything he or she wants out of his or her employees.

[AppleBonker]

To an extent. At some point, no one would agree to those employment terms and the company folds.

And, for the record, I'm not opposed to unions. In this specific instance, however, it seems they may be being a bit unreasonable. Though the important thing here is that I believe that is their right. If they want to fight hard enough to have workers not getting paid/getting benefits for a long enough period of time, more power to them!

[Encryptshun]

I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon was planning to sell off their wireline business unit and wanted a very favorable (or less unfavorable) union contract in order to keep from scaring off potential buyers.

[szh]

Which means the employer gets the employees willing to accept his or her terms. Rule still applies: without a union, an employer can get practically anything he or she wants out of his or her employees.

Perhaps in theory. But not practical reality.

It assumes the wrong thing as its premise: that corporations are always out to screw their employees all the time, without qualms, without any concerns whatsoever, no morals, etc.

This may have been true a hundred+ years ago with some "families" owned/run large entities - when unions were created to protect employees and poor working conditions - but there are simply too many other checks and balances (including employment competition in most good times, Federal and state laws, etc.) for this to be true today.

Yet, in such battles (union ones in particular), the corporations are always cast as the devil, who is only looking after their own profit interests, without any concern for their employees, etc., etc., etc.

And, sure, there are probably some bad apples, but Verizon hardly falls into that category.

Z

[szh]

To an extent. At some point, no one would agree to those employment terms and the company folds.

Yup. And labor laws have improved dramatically in the past century. Highly unlikely that a large corporation like Verizon could get away with too much crap.

And, for the record, I'm not opposed to unions. In this specific instance, however, it seems they may be being a bit unreasonable.

I think so ... on both points.

Though the important thing here is that I believe that is their right. If they want to fight hard enough to have workers not getting paid/getting benefits for a long enough period of time, more power to them!

Well, maybe. But, it is silly to stand hard on issues that they are more likely to lose than not.

They need to fight the just battles for their members, not ones that make them look like whiners in tough times for everybody.

Z

[AZhitman]

You still don't see it. Let me offer you a little help here....

Good for them. We need those people. (emph mine)

Because it's not there.

THOSE PEOPLE = unskilled, low-income workers. WTF does that have to do with race? Unless you're projecting you own ignorance and biases.

Anyone else perceive that as "racist"?

You've shown your colors. Spare me your backpedaling. I'll engage with the intellectuals in your party - you're not one of 'em.

"Hillbilly" my a$$. You and telco can go tell each other "okie" and "arab" jokes. He knows a bunch of them.

[AZhitman]

And, sure, there are probably some bad apples, but Verizon hardly falls into that category.

Z

...which I've been saying since Page 1.

No one's being "mistreated" here. They're obsolete, an albatross on the company's neck. They don't like the new terms, they can increase their skill set (which, incidentally Verizon will PAY FOR), accept that they're on the wrong end of a technological shift and accept a commensurate decrease, or they can go work someplace else.

Magazine and newspaper workers have done it with no whining.

[IBCoupe]

It assumes the wrong thing as its premise: that corporations are always out to screw their employees all the time, without qualms, without any concerns whatsoever, no morals, etc.

This may have been true a hundred+ years ago with some "families" owned/run large entities - when unions were created to protect employees and poor working conditions - but there are simply too many other checks and balances (including employment competition in most good times, Federal and state laws, etc.) for this to be true today.

Corporations aren't always out to screw their employees, and I didn't say they were. They are, on the other hand, always out to maximize profits - though this often manifests itself in different ways. I know this because a corporation is established for two reasons: first, to generate gain for its shareholders; second, to shield its shareholders from liability. Most corporations, even most large corporations, are still closely-held family businesses (e.g., Cargill, Ford Motor Company). That hasn't changed, and that's not why unions were "created," anyways.

The checks and balances that are in place establish a floor, you're right, but that's all they do. Federal and State laws establish the things that society considers to be criminal not to do. Employee competition is dependent upon a great many variables, including the health of the American economy.

Yet, in such battles (union ones in particular), the corporations are always cast as the devil, who is only looking after their own profit interests, without any concern for their employees, etc., etc., etc.

Well, in this case, I'm not doing any of that, etc., etc., etc. I'm not villainizing corporations; I'm simply describing the interests of the employer. Please try to respond only to things I've actually written.

[IBCoupe]

No one's being "mistreated" here. They're obsolete, an albatross on the company's neck. They don't like the new terms, they can increase their skill set (which, incidentally Verizon will PAY FOR), accept that they're on the wrong end of a technological shift and accept a commensurate decrease, or they can go work someplace else.

Again, Greg, mind your own business. The union isn't violating any laws; you just don't happen to like that they're asking for more than what you happen to think they deserve. If they are obsolete, Verizon has legal tools at its disposal. Verizon is not making use of them, so obviously they're worth something. Let the interested parties contract, and let it go.

This isn't your fight, and it's obnoxious. This whole thread should never have happened - too many people care too much about things that don't affect them at all. I dare say, it looks like envy. If you don't want a union, don't vote for one. Don't go around trying to make that determination for folks you don't know and don't even come close to working with.

[AppleBonker]

Isaac, the only problem with your above post is that both Verizon and the striking Verizon workers have pushed this on us. Verizon is very publicly trying to sway opinion in their favor (see the website dedicated to this goal). And the union spokesperson is fighting back just as publicly. They seemingly want this to be our business. Jusayn

[R/T Hemi]

Because it's not there.

THOSE PEOPLE = unskilled, low-income workers. WTF does that have to do with race? Unless you're projecting you own ignorance and biases.

Anyone else perceive that as "racist"?

You've shown your colors. Spare me your backpedaling. I'll engage with the intellectuals in your party - you're not one of 'em.

"Hillbilly" my a$$. You and telco can go tell each other "okie" and "arab" jokes. He knows a bunch of them.

Okay. For the last time, then I'll drop it.

I didn't say you WERE a racist. I said you "sounded" like a racist when you posted those comments and that perhaps that's why you had been called a racist in the past ( or so you indicated). I think the fact that you're so defensive over this indicates you realize you were wrong in the matter.

My whole point is that you will sound less like a racist if you avoid doing that in the future. That's all. It's such a simple fix I wonder why you're fighting it?

And the union thing. Once again. How is it not part of a free market economy? How is it bad if the consumer and the employees all win. The employees by gaining more for their labor, and the consumer by patronizing on a company with a competent and stable work force? Try dealing with some polite, yet incompetent tech dude in India next time your phone has a problem and then tell me whether you'd rather have a union keeping those jobs in the USA.

[stebo0728]

Why does every union thread make it to at least 4 pages?

[Encryptshun]

Why does every union thread make it to at least 4 pages?

Because if it doesn't, it goes on strike.

[stebo0728]

Would we get pummeled if we crossed the picket line?

[AZhitman]

Again, Greg, mind your own business.

Don't go around trying to make that determination for folks you don't know and don't even come close to working with.

Wrong. I'm a shareholder.

So they ALL, indirectly, work for me. I'm a lot of things, but apathetic isn't on the list.

[AZhitman]

I said you "sounded" like a racist when you posted those comments and that perhaps that's why you had been called a racist in the past ( or so you indicated).

No, it's not what you said. I'll quote you, since your memory is failing.

I just pointed out a racist remark you made hoping to educate you in social skills.

I think the fact that you're so defensive over this indicates you realize you were wrong in the matter.

When I'm wrong, I cop to it. Ask Isaac. Ask Z. Ask Tariq.

"Wrong" implies inaccuracy of facts. And the only "inaccuracy" here is your recollection of your remark.

Your opinion doesn't make something wrong.

However, you still haven't answered how someone could possibly construe racism from my statement that "we need those people", which I made in response to someone mentioning lower-skilled, lower-paid workers. For the record, they're predominantly white (the striking Verizon workers).

[IBCoupe]

Again, Greg, mind your own business.

Don't go around trying to make that determination for folks you don't know and don't even come close to working with.

Wrong. I'm a shareholder.

So they ALL, indirectly, work for me. I'm a lot of things, but apathetic isn't on the list.

Oh, so you have profit on the line. Did you mention that earlier, and I missed it? 'Cause that's the kind of disclosure that should probably happen at the start of a thread.

[IBCoupe]

Isaac, the only problem with your above post is that both Verizon and the striking Verizon workers have pushed this on us. Verizon is very publicly trying to sway opinion in their favor (see the website dedicated to this goal). And the union spokesperson is fighting back just as publicly. They seemingly want this to be our business. Jusayn

Yes, that's true, but ultimately this is a fight between an employer and an employee. If you've no dog in the fight, no matter how much they scream out to you to weigh in, you're not sitting at that table. You're not making negotiations. They each have economic weapons in reserve, and I see that they're each using them. That they're making public statements doesn't change any of that, it just means that people get to have a weak excuse to weigh in their ignorance.

[Encryptshun]

Anyone can buy Verizon stock. Ergo (to Greg's point), anyone can pay for their seat at the table. If profits take a dive because of a prolonged strike, the shareholders can vote "no confidence" in the Board and force their hand into hiring a new CEO.

[AppleBonker]

I'm ignorant now?

But, couldn't that be said about anything? There aren't too many instances (if you really think about it) where one has a direct interest or complete knowledge of a situation. Yet as a population we continue to talk about all of them.

[AZhitman]

Did you mention that earlier, and I missed it? 'Cause that's the kind of disclosure that should probably happen at the start of a thread.

Counsel, don't assume things in my courtroom. Discovery is your responsibility.

Aside from that little lesson, the larger point is that it's everyone's business. Not just if they're a shareholder (and if you own any large-cap mutual funds, there's a damn good chance you are), but because it's a company that contributes to the country's prosperity and wealth.

[IBCoupe]

I'm ignorant now?

But, couldn't that be said about anything? There aren't too many instances (if you really think about it) where one has a direct interest or complete knowledge of a situation. Yet as a population we continue to talk about all of them.

Didn't mean it that way. I'm saying that without a dog in the fight, you're just meddling in someone else's job. I think there's a difference when we're talking about public policy and when we're just bashing on what some folk are trying to negotiate for in a contract dispute.

EDIT: Instead of "ignorance," in my head was an idea more along the lines of "disinterested opinions." I can't figure out what word would be better, because I'm pretty sure that phrase isn't adequate, either.

[IBCoupe]

Aside from that little lesson, the larger point is that it's everyone's business. Not just if they're a shareholder (and if you own any large-cap mutual funds, there's a damn good chance you are), but because it's a company that contributes to the country's prosperity and wealth.

And the union workers do what with their paychecks? Make sweaters?

If you're not financially invested in it one way or the other, the same cash is at stake.

[Encryptshun]

Let me throw a wrench into this debate.

I have a vested interest because I'm a CONSUMER. I might be considering going back to having a wire-line phone for my house because it's more convenient for me. Verizon is the only game in town where I live (and don't kid yourself--there are plenty of places that still have no choice in home phone service), so if I want a land line I have to get it from them. And because of the greed of the Unions, Verizon passes those costs on to me. Effectively giving me the choice of either (a) paying more for the same service or (b) doing without and living with having my mobile phone as my only phone.

If my choice is (b), then I can only hope that the union for the wireless division doesn't decide to strike for more posh benefits, because then I have to change to a provider I don't like in order to protect my wireless budget.

[IBCoupe]

Hopefully you'd have other options than that - alternate providers. Or you could starve the union by going wireless, you old fart. Who the heck still uses a land-line for their phone?

[IBCoupe]

And if the union for the wireless division decides to unionize, more power to them. You'd have a dog in the fight, and you could argue against it, but I think their ability to negotiate a contract with them would outweigh your convenience. Plus, you'd hope that other carriers would follow through (or their workers), and then prices would go up, but so would cashflow into the economy. You might save less, but they'd spend more.

[AppleBonker]

I'm saying that without a dog in the fight, you're just meddling in someone else's job

Well, I can agree with this. I support their right to fight for whatever they want. My personal opinion is they're being unreasonable. And my personal opinion is that unions actually hurt good workers. But, if those workers choose to be held back by their unions, I respect their ability to do so.

[IBCoupe]

That's fair, but it just seems like a lot of the union bashing is just kids complaining about what Timmy's mom lets him do.