Would you work for a huge salary?

[dahermit]

But you didn't answer the first part of the reply.

Is there any product that is produced by Unionized companies that are better than the same product produced by non unionized companies?

The sole purpose of a union is to protect the workers from the abuses of the companies. The abuses that resulted in the labor movement in the first place. It is not the function of a union to make a better product than a non-union company.

There are companies that were and are very successful without unions, without abusing the workers. However, American companies having been too greedy to follow that model, most are located in Japan. Re: Deming.

 

[Dr.Who]

The company was screwing everyone there is some way or another. I was not hired in to practice my advanced degree, I was hired to do the same work as the woman who was training me. She should have been making more than I was being paid.

the boss apparently thought it was a better use of HIS money to pay a person who proved that he was capable of getting an advanced degree than to pay a person who was just doing some job and may very well have had issues with tardiness or whatever. It is not your place to judge how another uses his own money.

The women working there were making much less than the men despite doing the same work, and in many cases, were better at performing the work (which would negate the claim that pay was merit based) than the men.

You seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Perhaps you have "hardened your heart" against the reality of working in a non-union environment.

To the best of my memory you did not yet make the case that the women were being treated worse than the men. Only that one woman was being treated worse than you.

Some how I doubt you had access to the payroll records to indicate that this claim is correct nor that your initial claim that the company paid 5% less than prevailing wages is correct. (especially since you said there was no other work so other prevailing wages would be zero)

 

[Dr.Who]

You missed the part where there was very little employment available, people had to take what they could get.

The value judgment of if the salary [Sic, hourly wage], was poor or not is not relative to if they could or could not do any better, it is relative to the quality of life it enables for themselves and their children...Conservative ideology notwithstanding.

Your ideology has obviously insulated your practice of "Christan values", from the reality of the poor working class.

Sorry but the value of the wage is completely determined by what the person getting it thinks of it and what the person paying it thinks of it.

All those people who took the job thought it was worth it and that is why they took it. They also thought it was better than any other job they could have taken so it was also the best available. You even said they were lucky to have the job. People who get the best job available and are lucky to have it should be grateful for what they have and use it as an opportunity to do better in the future. Others just complain without knowing the facts.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would depend on how hungry their children were. A choice between no food at all, and a box of macaroni and cheese.

If an employer offers a parent the opportunity to feed his children and the parent accepts the deal and it is the best deal there is - that is good.

Basic economics tells us that if employers offer more money than the economy dictates that they go out of business and then no one gets fed.

 

[Dr.Who]

first I did not say that I did...I made a joke about my former employeer who did screw over its workers....sears....when I started working there, they actuy did treat workers ok ...and then they started to get worse and worse....then got bought out, and decided to rape there own employees for profit while the pissed of the consumer....basicly they wanted to get in make a quick buck and let it go...no long term intent....the company I quit ...was not the one who Hired me

Assuming you quit before they conditions got worse than it was worth you did the smart thing.

And since it costs a lot to hire and train new employees the company got hurt by its bad practices (assuming you are not exaggerating).

 

[Dr.Who]

It depends on the job. So, would I work for a huge salary? Sure if I didnt mind the job. But there are some lines I would not cross. I could think of a bunch of different scenarios, but ultimately...money isnt everything.

Do you suppose that there are others who have values like yours? Others that would not cross lines and do earn large salaries?

And for those that do cross lines who should stop them from doing wrong things? Why, the government that makes the laws of course.

But should said government ignore wrongdoing and tax them higher when they do wrong to make up for the injustice? Or shouldn't said government just stop the injustice?

 

[TheFranklinParty]

most good CEO's should know that there job has nothing to do with being a Salesperson....people all to often think that if you can sell something, you can be a manager of said sales people...or vice versa...some of the best sales people I know...Horrible managers.....best managers,,,,could not sell crap if they had to.

Jack Welch did and John Chambers does consider themselves the highest ranking sales person in the organization. They also have both been quoted as saying their primary job was selling the vision of their company.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

The sole purpose of a union is to protect the workers from the abuses of the companies. The abuses that resulted in the labor movement in the first place. It is not the function of a union to make a better product than a non-union company.

There are companies that were and are very successful without unions, without abusing the workers. However, American companies having been too greedy to follow that model, most are located in Japan. Re: Deming.

Please stop referencing Deming. The guy was a *****. He single handedly slowed innovation and growth in this country. Most of the companies that followed his lead in the 1980's found themselves bankrupt both financially and creatively. Even today his process oriented methodology has driven companies to a consensus vote on every decision. Consensus votes only give you mediocrity. His theories worked well in the post WWII Japanese world of commodity manufacturing, but once again has failed as Japan moved into a technology advancement. Also, Japan has as much, or more, corruption in their corporate world as we do.

 

[dahermit]

the boss apparently thought it was a better use of HIS money to pay a person who proved that he was capable of getting an advanced degree than to pay a person who was just doing some job and may very well have had issues with tardiness or whatever.

She always got good evaluations, telling her what a wonderful worker she was.

It is not your place to judge how another uses his own money.

But, it is yours to judge that he was using his money fairly.

To the best of my memory you did not yet make the case that the women were being treated worse than the men. Only that one woman was being treated worse than you.
...Some how I doubt you had access to the payroll records to indicate that this claim is correct nor...

Despite the fact that the "orientation papers" given to us stated that I was a firing offense to tell another employee how much money one was making, the topic was discussed in secret and it was determined that all the women were making much less than the men.

 

[dahermit]

Please stop referencing Deming. The guy was a *****. He single handedly slowed innovation and growth in this country. Most of the companies that followed his lead in the 1980's found themselves bankrupt both financially and creatively. Even today his process oriented methodology has driven companies to a consensus vote on every decision. Consensus votes only give you mediocrity. His theories worked well in the post WWII Japanese world of commodity manufacturing, but once again has failed as Japan moved into a technology advancement. Also, Japan has as much, or more, corruption in their corporate world as we do.

Links for your profound claims please.

 

[dahermit]

If an employer offers a parent the opportunity to feed his children and the parent accepts the deal and it is the best deal there is - that is good.

"Good", even if they cannot pay the rent, provide adequate food, clothing.

Poop in one hand and the other is empty, equals good? That town, (30% unemployment) in that state (Michigan 15% + unemployment), the choices were, welfare and that job. Should they be on welfare instead?

Basic economics tells us that if employers offer more money than the economy dictates that they go out of business and then no one gets fed.

When does the "economy dictate" that the CEO should be paid 227 times what the employees of the same company gets? There is a huge difference between what a company chooses to pay its employees and what it could pay them if they gave a $hit about them.

I have worked for a small company where the boss and I had a conversation: Him: "Some companies can only afford to pay minimum wage." He had multiple homes, as did his son. He was driving a Lincoln Continental, and his son, also an owner, had just put in an in-ground swimming pool. Afford-ability would seem to be a variable dependent upon power and greed.

But, I am wasting my breath. Conservatives can rationalize any affront, injustice, abuse of their fellow man "..gaining the whole world...", without missing a day in church. "...your righteousness are as filthy rags.", as that guy once said.

 

[chestnut]

How is equal opportunity an injustice? Opportunity has no 'bias'

Everyone has the same opportunity to do what the evil athletes, movie stars, corp executives, and achieve vast amounts of wealth. It's called hard work and sacrifice.
Giving up the vacation, the big screen t.v., the new car, the big fancy house. The latest IPOD, designer clothes, etc.. etc..
Put those things aside until they achieve the wealth, instead of going in debt first and then backing themselves in a corner to be forced to take whatever they can get.

I think that people's choices have ultimately put them in predicaments where they have limited options.

Look at Barrack Obama. He's in the White House, with millions in the bank off his book deals. He came from a most humble childhood and background.

A great many of our top paid athletes, as well, came from dirt poor families. But those athletes probably didn't go partying, they honed their sport, and worked harder than others to craft their skill and rise to the top.

Name one other country that has turned so many down-trodden, unfortunate, indivuduals into Millionaires than the U.S.

That's because (as of now anyway) we have the Freedom to pursue. It may not be easy, there may be sacrifice, but the opportunity is there.

Many though, like in many parts of their lives, take the easy road and just strive for mediocrity and then piss and moan they don't have everything and that they are being put down.

How did we become a country of cry babies that want our problems solved for us and want the govt to come running to our aid?

This is one of the reason's this country is in a mess. So many people, waiting for the govt to rescue them. They've been told that they can't do it without the govt's help so they believe that and just get compacent and say o.k.

I've been screwed over 2 times by business partners in the last 10 yrs. Both times, I got hung out to dry.

I didn't go running to anyone. I just dusted myself off and went back to taking care of myself and my family. It wasn't easy. But I did it, and I'm back on top of my game, once again.

Quite honestly, I want to puke, when I hear people talk about evil rich people. You know, the one's who do employee millions, start businesses, donate to charitable foundations. Those bad people. We ought to go hunt em down and demand they pay more.

 

[PLC1]

How is equal opportunity an injustice? Opportunity has no 'bias'

Everyone has the same opportunity to do what the evil athletes, movie stars, corp executives, and achieve vast amounts of wealth. It's called hard work and sacrifice.
Giving up the vacation, the big screen t.v., the new car, the big fancy house. The latest IPOD, designer clothes, etc.. etc..
Put those things aside until they achieve the wealth, instead of going in debt first and then backing themselves in a corner to be forced to take whatever they can get.

I think that people's choices have ultimately put them in predicaments where they have limited options.

Look at Barrack Obama. He's in the White House, with millions in the bank off his book deals. He came from a most humble childhood and background.

A great many of our top paid athletes, as well, came from dirt poor families. But those athletes probably didn't go partying, they honed their sport, and worked harder than others to craft their skill and rise to the top.

Name one other country that has turned so many down-trodden, unfortunate, indivuduals into Millionaires than the U.S.

That's because (as of now anyway) we have the Freedom to pursue. It may not be easy, there may be sacrifice, but the opportunity is there.

Many though, like in many parts of their lives, take the easy road and just strive for mediocrity and then piss and moan they don't have everything and that they are being put down.

How did we become a country of cry babies that want our problems solved for us and want the govt to come running to our aid?

This is one of the reason's this country is in a mess. So many people, waiting for the govt to rescue them. They've been told that they can't do it without the govt's help so they believe that and just get compacent and say o.k.

I've been screwed over 2 times by business partners in the last 10 yrs. Both times, I got hung out to dry.

I didn't go running to anyone. I just dusted myself off and went back to taking care of myself and my family. It wasn't easy. But I did it, and I'm back on top of my game, once again.

Quite honestly, I want to puke, when I hear people talk about evil rich people. You know, the one's who do employee millions, start businesses, donate to charitable foundations. Those bad people. We ought to go hunt em down and demand they pay more.

The US is a land of opportunity, no question about it. Hard work, perseverance, and a lot of luck can make a person rich, while those who don't strive will generally not do so well.

Of course, there's more to success than a huge bank account. The other kinds of success, close family ties or the respect of one's fellows, for example, come from hard work also.

Then, there are the Bernie Madoffs of the world, the CEOs who take a truckload of money from the government and then pay themselves a big bonus, and the ones who take shortcuts and who pay their workers squat while buying the second mansion.

Not all rich people are evil, nor are they all good. They are people who either inherited it, earned it, or stole it.

Kudos to the ones who earned it.

 

[Dr.Who]

She always got good evaluations, telling her what a wonderful worker she was.
But, it is yours to judge that he was using his money fairly.

Yes. You see I understand freedom and with freedom everyone gets to decide what to do with their own money. You are the one who wants to judge what he does with his own money.

Despite the fact that the "orientation papers" given to us stated that I was a firing offense to tell another employee how much money one was making, the topic was discussed in secret and it was determined that all the women were making much less than the men.

It sounds like none of you were very good employees and all should have been fired.

Assuming that the information yo had was accurate then the role of gov would be to enforce the laws that protect rights. Why didn't the gov do it's job?

 

[Dr.Who]

"Good", even if they cannot pay the rent, provide adequate food, clothing.

Poop in one hand and the other is empty, equals good? That town, (30% unemployment) in that state (Michigan 15% + unemployment), the choices were, welfare and that job. Should they be on welfare instead?

They accepted the jobs so they must have been good.

If the job does not pay enough to provide a living for oneself then one should not take it. But I am quite sure that the minimum wage laws were in effect at the time that your story takes place so the job paid enough for a member of a family to contribute.

Not that that matters. if the job does not pay enough don't take it. This is America anyone with half a skill can go get another job. Will no one hire you? Then work for yourself. I used to make a decent buck per hour even by adult standards when I was a kid with nothing more than the willingness to use someone else's lawnmower to cut someone else's lawn.

When does the "economy dictate" that the CEO should be paid 227 times what the employees of the same company gets? There is a huge difference between what a company chooses to pay its employees and what it could pay them if they gave a $hit about them.

It dictated that when the person who hired the CEO decided that it was the best use of his money that he owned and has a civil right to spend however he wants to pay his salary. You have been arguing for a while now that owners don't want to pay more than they have to so now I think you should accept that.

I have worked for a small company where the boss and I had a conversation: Him: "Some companies can only afford to pay minimum wage." He had multiple homes, as did his son. He was driving a Lincoln Continental, and his son, also an owner, had just put in an in-ground swimming pool. Afford-ability would seem to be a variable dependent upon power and greed.

It looks like you are stuck on class warfare. Just go be the boss if you think it is so great.

But, I am wasting my breath. Conservatives can rationalize any affront, injustice, abuse of their fellow man "..gaining the whole world...", without missing a day in church. "...your righteousness are as filthy rags.", as that guy once said.

I certainly can explain all the so called abuses you mentioned. Either the gov should step in or they are not really abuses. So far other than the alleged disparity in pay between men and women everything you mentioned was the result of two adults making a contractual agreement. And whatever happens in the bedroo, er I mean, office, between two consenting adults is between them.

Why do you think employers are so greedy? Is it something about the American character?