NationStates Jolt Archive

Swift company, a meat packing business, is being sued by it's ex-workers who claim that the company hired illegal aliens in order to drive down wages. I wish them good luck in their lawsuit and I hope that this starts a trend of workers suing their employers for this kind of unfair hiring.

What the illegal aliens are doing is similar to what scabs do when a union workforce is on strike. They're weakening the collective bargaining power of the legal workers by taking the jobs for significantly less money. If you believe in the rights of labor and in honest pay for honest work you shouldn't be in favor of illegal aliens taking jobs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/5EFFBBE519B43B1D8625724900120A09?OpenDocument

Another fun tactic is to hire enough illegals to displace white workers to the point that a union can't get a foothold. No union, no reason to raise wages.

Boo-hoo-hoo. Damn immigrants taking American jobs away.

Boo-hoo-hoo. Damn immigrants taking American jobs away.

Uh, no. More like illegals letting companies shit on them means that legal employees get the shaft too.

Another fun tactic is to hire enough illegals to displace white workers to the point that a union can't get a foothold. No union, no reason to raise wages.

Displacing white workers? So it's some sort of conspiracy against White People?

Displacing white workers? So it's some sort of conspiracy against White People?

No but considering there weren't any black folks on our crew it's an appropriate term.

Boo-hoo-hoo. Damn immigrants taking American jobs away.
There is a difference between immigrants, the legal type, the other type of immigrant, the illegal kind. The illegal type are the ones taking these jobs at significantly lower wages, not the legal immigrants who came via the normal channels.

No but considering there weren't any black folks on our crew it's an appropriate term.

So you're talking specifically about your own experience and not a general thing.

Another fun tactic is to hire enough illegals to displace white workers to the point that a union can't get a foothold. No union, no reason to raise wages.
And the companies get a two for one, because the illegals come from places where union organization has a strong history, but they dare not organize here because they can get tossed out so easily.

So you're talking specifically about your own experience and not a general thing.

Duh.

Maybe the unions should try and recruit the immigrants instead of bitching about them.

Maybe the unions should try and recruit the immigrants instead of bitching about them.

Can't recruit an illegal immigrant. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Maybe the unions should try and recruit the immigrants instead of bitching about them.

If the illegals get amnesty and legal status, the unions will be on them like ugly on Charles Krauthammer.

If the illegals get amnesty and legal status, the unions will be on them like ugly on Charles Krauthammer.

Dissing people in wheelchairs now?

What the illegal aliens are doing is similar to what scabs do when a union workforce is on strike.

The illegals are criminals who need to be dumped back across the border.

Scabs are citizens who are willing to do a job that others aren't. I give my full support to these hard workers.

Just because some scummy union worker is too lazy to do a job, doesn't mean they have any right to deny that job to someone else.

Hey, union slob! Don't want someone else to have your cushy job? Then work to keep it; make yourself a more valuable contender for the position.

If you believe in the rights of labor and in honest pay for honest work you shouldn't be in favor of illegal aliens taking jobs.

I oppose unions for this exact reason.

Help your country - bust a union today!

Before I retired I was working with several legal immigrants. These are intelligent, hard-working, motivated people. They came here legally and got their jobs in competition with others - they were selected because they were the best fit for their jobs and they are paid the same wages and benefits that everyone else gets. I talked to them about the problem of illegal aliens and they all agreed - the illegals are undermining everyone. They create problems for the people who want to come here legally, they create problems for people who want to work for living wages and decent benefits.

I understand that the Mexican economy is in the sewer and no one except the rich lives decently. I know why they want to come here, but I also know that our infrastructure can't tolerate unrestricted immigration and that there must be controls on immigration. This is why I propose a simple solution to the problem. Annex Mexico. Remove their government (which is even more corrupt, if possible, than those of Louisiana and California) and start reforms that would bring education, health care and decent jobs to the working people of that country. Mexican resources, which are many, could then be used to lift the whole country out of poverty, not just for lining the pockets of the rich and corrupt. (Don't get me wrong, I believe in regulated capitalism - everyone should have the opportunity to get rich, but the key word is regulated).

Swift should not have been allowed to hire illegals to undercut the regular workers - now two groups of people have been hurt - the regular workers and the families of the illegals who took the jobs. Swift (and other companies using the same tactics) is just using the same corrupt tactics that Mexican enterprises use. This shouldnt be the American way.

Merry Christmas.

Dissing people in wheelchairs now?
Does the fact that he's in a wheelchair mean I can't make fun of his face? I mean, that's a face built for the print media, no question.

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/mugshots/bigkrauthammer.jpg


Edit: And in case it wasn't clear, Charles Krauthammer does not fill the set of "people in wheelchairs." If I were dissing people in wheelchairs, I'd have said "people in wheelchairs." Instead, I dissed Charles Krauthammer, an ugly man (in more ways than one) who happens to be in a wheelchair. Sorry, you get no score on this one either.

The illegals are criminals who need to be dumped back across the border.

Scabs are citizens who are willing to do a job that others aren't. I give my full support to these hard workers.

Just because some scummy union worker is too lazy to do a job, doesn't mean they have any right to deny that job to someone else.

Hey, union slob! Don't want someone else to have your cushy job? Then work to keep it; make yourself a more valuable contender for the position.



I oppose unions for this exact reason.

Help your country - bust a union today!

Oh, so you want to go back to a pre-OSHA workplace, an 84 hour work week with no bennies and no worker protections? Fine--there's plenty of places in the world who'd love to have you. Me, I'll stick with my union, thank you very much. I like the fact that management (in this case, the state of Florida) can't fuck me unilaterally.

what the hell do YOU know about it Nazz? Florida should be able to tie you to a railroad trestle and steal your pants if it wants to. The needs of the state before the needs of the people. Didnt you ever hear tha in kindergarden indoctrination classes?

It really cheeses me off when people act like they deserve a job AND some money to buy food with.

what the hell do YOU know about it Nazz? Florida should be able to tie you to a railroad trestle and steal your pants if it wants to. The needs of the state before the needs of the people. Didnt you ever hear tha in kindergarden indoctrination classes?

It really cheeses me off when people act like they deserve a job AND some money to buy food with.
:D

what the hell do YOU know about it Nazz? Florida should be able to tie you to a railroad trestle and steal your pants if it wants to. The needs of the state before the needs of the people. Didnt you ever hear tha in kindergarden indoctrination classes?

It really cheeses me off when people act like they deserve a job AND some money to buy food with.

Yeah. That's bullshit. I just want the money.

Swift should not have been allowed to hire illegals to undercut the regular workers - now two groups of people have been hurt - the regular workers and the families of the illegals who took the jobs. Swift (and other companies using the same tactics) is just using the same corrupt tactics that Mexican enterprises use. This shouldnt be the American way.

How exactly are the illegal immigrants hurt by having jobs?
Seems they are rather benefiting by getting paid.

Unions are simply a way to bully employers into paying someone more than they are worth. In the case of the auto industry in the US it comes to the point of bankrupting companies. Without unions, those companies would be more viable, their products would be cheaper (big boon to the entire population), and everyone as a whole is better off. Unions are a way of saying that a select group of individuals should benefit at the cost of the population as a whole.

Oh, so you want to go back to a pre-OSHA workplace, an 84 hour work week with no bennies and no worker protections?

What does OSHA have to do with unions?

As the work week and the bennies, if you don't like them, quit and work where you like it better. If enough quit, the employer will change his ways to stay in business.

I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, but it should not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent a willing worker from being hired.

So, if someone is willing to work 84 hours with no bennies, you have no business telling him he can't.

This is another benefit of living in Texas. Unions don't have a stranglehold on employers. This is a Right To Work state. Some disgruntled union that wants to add midday footrubs to its list of essential demands can't keep others with more realistic goals from getting jobs.

What does OSHA have to do with unions?

As the work week and the bennies, if you don't like them, quit and work where you like it better. If enough quit, the employer will change his ways to stay in business.

I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, but it should not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent a willing worker from being hired.

So, if someone is willing to work 84 hours with no bennies, you have no business telling him he can't.

This is another benefit of living in Texas. Unions don't have a stranglehold on employers. This is a Right To Work state. Some disgruntled union that wants to add midday footrubs to its list of essential demands can't keep others with more realistic goals from getting jobs.

OSHA and other legislation to protect workers only got passed because of the efforts of labor unions. In fact, most of the labor rights we have today are there thanks to unions. Fact is, before unions, little kids were the employees of choice in dirty, unsafe factories and mines and they were paid a pittance. Children were exploited back then like illegals are exploited now.

Swift company, a meat packing business, is being sued by it's ex-workers who claim that the company hired illegal aliens in order to drive down wages. I wish them good luck in their lawsuit and I hope that this starts a trend of workers suing their employers for this kind of unfair hiring.

What the illegal aliens are doing is similar to what scabs do when a union workforce is on strike. They're weakening the collective bargaining power of the legal workers by taking the jobs for significantly less money. If you believe in the rights of labor and in honest pay for honest work you shouldn't be in favor of illegal aliens taking jobs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/5EFFBBE519B43B1D8625724900120A09?OpenDocument

I hope the workers prevail in their suit.

Business owners and corporate executives should be held personally liable, both civilly and criminally, for their companies' hiring of illegals.

Sweep up the dog crap and the flies will stop coming.

What does OSHA have to do with unions?Easy--OSHA came into being because unions forced the issue with the politicians. No unions--no OSHA.

As the work week and the bennies, if you don't like them, quit and work where you like it better. If enough quit, the employer will change his ways to stay in business.

I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, but it should not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent a willing worker from being hired.

So, if someone is willing to work 84 hours with no bennies, you have no business telling him he can't.

This is another benefit of living in Texas. Unions don't have a stranglehold on employers. This is a Right To Work state. Some disgruntled union that wants to add midday footrubs to its list of essential demands can't keep others with more realistic goals from getting jobs.
Yet another example of a person who doesn't know shit about the history of the labor movement in the US. What a fucking shock. :rolleyes:

OSHA and other legislation to protect workers only got passed because of the efforts of labor unions. In fact, most of the labor rights we have today are there thanks to unions. Fact is, before unions, little kids were the employees of choice in dirty, unsafe factories and mines and they were paid a pittance. Children were exploited back then like illegals are exploited now.
Little known fact--some of the first workers ever to strike in the US were child laborers. Ten year olds who wanted to go to school instead of being stuck in a sweatshop for twelve to fourteen hours a day were some of the first to walk.

How exactly are the illegal immigrants hurt by having jobs?
Seems they are rather benefiting by getting paid.

Unions are simply a way to bully employers into paying someone more than they are worth. In the case of the auto industry in the US it comes to the point of bankrupting companies. Without unions, those companies would be more viable, their products would be cheaper (big boon to the entire population), and everyone as a whole is better off. Unions are a way of saying that a select group of individuals should benefit at the cost of the population as a whole.

The illegals took jobs to which they, as illegals, had no right by law. They were arrested and removed, leaving their families with no support, so yes, they were hurt.

If you had any notion of history, you would know that unions stopped the exploitation of children in the workplace and forced employers to pay the workers what they were worth. They stopped employers from firing workers without cause. They were responsible for the inception of sick leave, vacation, holidays, health benefits and all of the other things that workers everywhere in this country (and others) enjoy today. They still protect workers from arbitrary, unilateral decisions that harm workers. When a company and a union work together everyone benefits. When a company tries to bust the union, it's a prelude to exploitation. When a union tries to bust a company, it's counterproductive because it means a loss of jobs, unions don't want that. It is to the union's advantage for the company to be productive and profitable.

What we need is a balance between unions and the corporations. We've seen the kind of abusive stuff companies will pull if they can. We've also seen corrupt unions with 5 people getting paid for doing the work of one.

We need a happy medium,, where the unions can protect the workers, but they stll have to earn their money.

What we need is a balance between unions and the corporations. We've seen the kind of abusive stuff companies will pull if they can. We've also seen corrupt unions with 5 people getting paid for doing the work of one.

We need a happy medium,, where the unions can protect the workers, but they stll have to earn their money.

that has been the problem since the beginning

SOME companies take as much advantage of the worker as they can and give as little as possible and some unions are out there to fight for a fair wage/benefits BUT then SOME unions take advantage of companies and use their power to force them to pay the workers more than they are worth.

I dont think there will ever be a balance because people all around are selfish, but the efforts of both sides are necessary to keep opposing groups in line as much as possible.

The illegals took jobs to which they, as illegals, had no right by law. They were arrested and removed, leaving their families with no support, so yes, they were hurt.

If you had any notion of history, you would know that unions stopped the exploitation of children in the workplace and forced employers to pay the workers what they were worth. They stopped employers from firing workers without cause. They were responsible for the inception of sick leave, vacation, holidays, health benefits and all of the other things that workers everywhere in this country (and others) enjoy today. They still protect workers from arbitrary, unilateral decisions that harm workers. When a company and a union work together everyone benefits. When a company tries to bust the union, it's a prelude to exploitation. When a union tries to bust a company, it's counterproductive because it means a loss of jobs, unions don't want that. It is to the union's advantage for the company to be productive and profitable.

I believe that unions a century ago had a very beneficial effect – I have no qualms with them in a historical context of organizing workers together (so long as nobody was compelled to join a union and did it of their own free will).

The problem is the modern manifestation of the union, which is not beneficial for the economy as a whole. Companies are prohibited from hiring non-union labor, or in the case of right-to-work states, non-union employees are harassed and intimidated without mercy until they quit or join the union. A company is then repeatedly thrown into negotiations in the position of ‘do this or we will force you into bankruptcy’. Yes, it is in the union’s interest for the company to be successful, but most union leadership (which in the modern union is not a grunt worker themselves so is not personally impacted by prolonged or failed negotiations) is woefully short-sighted. Just look at the case of Delphi.

Using Great Depression era advances to justify the completely different creature that is a union today is fairly useless. They are simply not the same creature.

If the company is breaking the law, they deserve to be punished. If it's not, then they don't deserve to be punished and the people filing the suit should be countersued. It simply boils down to whether or not the company broke the law; if you can legally hire someone who is willing to work for less money, then there's nothing wrong with doing so but if you hire someone who is illegal for less money then you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

What does OSHA have to do with unions?

As the work week and the bennies, if you don't like them, quit and work where you like it better. If enough quit, the employer will change his ways to stay in business.

I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, but it should not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent a willing worker from being hired.

So, if someone is willing to work 84 hours with no bennies, you have no business telling him he can't.

This is another benefit of living in Texas. Unions don't have a stranglehold on employers. This is a Right To Work state. Some disgruntled union that wants to add midday footrubs to its list of essential demands can't keep others with more realistic goals from getting jobs.
I should of known you are from Texas. Highest proportion of bad educations in the world, per capita.

DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER HOW Texas A&M killed a bunch of people building that bon fire tower a while back? AT AN ENGINEERING SCHOOL they couldn't find an engineer to help them build a bonfire?:rolleyes: TYpical Texans.

DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER HOW Texas A&M killed a bunch of people building that bon fire tower a while back? AT AN ENGINEERING SCHOOL they couldn't find an engineer to help them build a bonfire?:rolleyes: TYpical Texans.

Actually, Texas has one of the strongest state economies in the United States with huge IT, finance, healthcare/biotech, engineering, energy, and business services industries. It attracts and produces a lot of well educated people and it is one of the most competitive states in the US for attracting and retaining foreign investment.

Other than California and Florida, there are few states that can match Texas in any aspect of its educational or economic development.

This lawsuit is doomed to shameful, embarrassed failure from the whispers in the company, even though Swift are crooked assholes who swept thousands of Illegals through their hirings without proper papers. A former Employment Office Head at the plant where I worked was actually caught and fired for 'fixing' documents of illegals who would set aside a part of their first paycheck. It was all a big joke, even to the bosses in their suits, until this whole fiasco went down.

I worked at Swift for two years before getting tired of being forced to speak Spanish on the radio, so I know quite a bit about the environment and the wages paid, and my wife is currently a QA and Verifier on one of the fab lines, so I'm still very much in the mix of things. This lawsuit is doomed to failure, because the starting pay grade for Swift & Co. is far and above the average, for my area at least, and people typically advance quite quickly. If you don't, it's because you're an idiot without the ability to properly push a button for eight hours. My wife was hired at $11.00 an hour, a year and a half ago. She makes just under $15/hour now. So it seems to me that the lawsuit is kind of... ridiculous.

Ahh, as to Union VS non, my money goes with the unions every time. Though with their fair share of crooked practices and shady dealings, the rewards I recieved from my meager dues far outweighed the cost. It's always nice to have a junkyard dog on your side, when things get rough, and Unions are just that.

And rooseveldt made probably the ignorant comment I've heard in months, and is now on my 'fucking idiot' list of posts to skip over. Congratulations.

I believe that unions a century ago had a very beneficial effect – I have no qualms with them in a historical context of organizing workers together (so long as nobody was compelled to join a union and did it of their own free will).

The problem is the modern manifestation of the union, which is not beneficial for the economy as a whole. Companies are prohibited from hiring non-union labor, or in the case of right-to-work states, non-union employees are harassed and intimidated without mercy until they quit or join the union. A company is then repeatedly thrown into negotiations in the position of ‘do this or we will force you into bankruptcy’. Yes, it is in the union’s interest for the company to be successful, but most union leadership (which in the modern union is not a grunt worker themselves so is not personally impacted by prolonged or failed negotiations) is woefully short-sighted. Just look at the case of Delphi.

Using Great Depression era advances to justify the completely different creature that is a union today is fairly useless. They are simply not the same creature.

While I am not a proponent of the closed shop, I still support unions. My erstwhile employer, the University of California, while in possession of millions of dollars in discretionary money, steadfastly refused to pay it's lower level workers anything approaching a living wage, attempted to use our retirement fund for a slush fund, and has succeeded in destroying our benefits - low wage employees actually pay more, relative to their salaries, than the highly paid employees for health insurance. They have terrorized union members, allowing middle management to trump up grounds for dismissal - the employee then has to hire an attorney (not cheap) in order to gain redress. An effective union is necessary to continue the protections we've gained in the past - big business (and that includes such purportedly benign organizations as universities, hospitals and various government offices) will not, unless forced, behave ethically towards the people on whom it depends, the workers. And please don't go all Ayn Rand on me - ideas are all well and good, but they go nowhere without trained, intelligent people to put them into effect - i.e. workers.

If you believe in the rights of labor and in honest pay for honest work you shouldn't be in favor of illegal aliens taking jobs.

If you believe in the rights of labor and in honest pay for honest work, you shouldn't support trapping poor workers in Mexico to compete for even worse jobs with other even worse off Mexican workers.

Labor competition is part of capitalism. I oppose capitalism, but I'm not about to blame the failures of the system upon immigrants.

If the company is breaking the law, they deserve to be punished. If it's not, then they don't deserve to be punished and the people filing the suit should be countersued. It simply boils down to whether or not the company broke the law; if you can legally hire someone who is willing to work for less money, then there's nothing wrong with doing so but if you hire someone who is illegal for less money then you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Since when is it wrong to break the law?

And since when is it right as long as it isn't illegal?

Actually, Texas has one of the strongest state economies in the United States with huge IT, finance, healthcare/biotech, engineering, energy, and business services industries. It attracts and produces a lot of well educated people and it is one of the most competitive states in the US for attracting and retaining foreign investment.

Other than California and Florida, there are few states that can match Texas in any aspect of its educational or economic development.
Oh bullhoocky. Texas is a land of scrub oaks and people with teeth growing out of their necks. Being a cajun I know all about people with teeth growing out their necks. :D

but I have to put my hand up for a reality check here. You can't be serious about Texas Education system, right? It's a mess. Down there with Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama. Wasn't always. Is now. Thanks W :)

Since when is it wrong to break the law?

When the law and morality intersect, it is wrong to break the law. If a law is right, breaking it is wrong and I consider laws protecting workers and immigrants to be morally right as well as legally important.

And since when is it right as long as it isn't illegal?

It's not. However, you can't really get justice for a wrong unless something illegal happens, since only the court has the power to really punish wrongdoers and right whatever wrongs had been committed.

And rooseveldt made probably the ignorant comment I've heard in months, and is now on my 'fucking idiot' list of posts to skip over. Congratulations.

that's my job :D

We aim to please:cool:

Oh bullhoocky. Texas is a land of scrub oaks and people wit hteeth growing out of their necks. Being a cajun I know all about it. :D

:D All I know is that the cities are pretty damn well off.

but I have to put my hand up for a reality check here. You can't be serious about Texas Education system, right? It's a mess. Down there with Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama. Wasn't always. Is now. Thanks W :)

I'm talking about the university system...hell, everyone knows that the Southern states' public schools are especially shitty.

When the law and morality intersect, it is wrong to break the law. If a law is right, breaking it is wrong and I consider laws protecting workers and immigrants to be morally right as well as legally important.

These laws "protect workers" the same way tariffs protect workers - they protect some workers at the expense of other workers.

And how do they protect immigrants? They are designed to hurt immigrants, so that they won't come.

ahh okay. You are right about the university system. Baylor is effing awesome. My Bro in law had a choice of there or hopkins and he chose Baylor. Must mean summat:D
and having lived in Texas, the only place I would willinlgly live is Dam B (where my family has land) or waaaay south along the broder, or Austen. Austen rocks!

PANTERA!

Date of Birth:
October 24, 1983
Age:
23
Biography:
I rose, I roared aloud...
Location:
Toke, Pantera {A shithole in Texas}
Interests:
Reaving, raping and pillaging...
Occupation:
Lord Reaver

now i know why you got your panties all up your crack! well get over it. I'm a cajun. It's my job to make fun of ya'll!:D

OSHA and other legislation to protect workers only got passed because of the efforts of labor unions.

Still, OSHA is a federal op, not union.

What this has to do with union workers somehow being able to prevent others from working is beyond me.

If someone is willing to work, another has no right to stop them from doing so. As long as that someone is legally in the country.

Is Swift hiring illegals?

If so, I don't care why, bust'em for doing so. But, if Company X's union slobs strike for $25/hour to sweep floors and others are hired who will do it for $15, then tough luck for the union slobs. They have no right to stop others from legally working.

So, help the nation - Bust a union today!

mmmm...I am not sure I agree, man. Unions forced American companies to pay the first living wage. Before they struck, corporations were paying barely enough to rent an apartment with. AND they owned the apartment. I'd rather have unions being assholes than companies starving us.

Out of interest, Myseneum, what do you do? You seem pretty unsympethetic.

What this has to do with union workers somehow being able to prevent others from working is beyond me.

Why is it that you people claim to believe so strongly in the right of the employer to set whatever conditions of employment she wants, but when the union successfully pressures the employer to make one such condition "join the union," you scream in protest?

Long story short for me, on the illegal immigration thing all around: Welcome! You immigrated legally, like a hundred million other people over the past two centuries?! Fantastic! I'm glad to have you as a fellow American, and wish you luck and prosperity for all your days.

However, if you snuck over here illegally for dollars, that makes you a criminal in my eyes, and you can tote it back to Nowhere, Venezuela to work for dimes. It may take some time and hard work to get that citizenship, but if improvement for you and yours is the issue, not greed, I say it's a small thing to ask.

ahh okay. You are right about the university system. Baylor is effing awesome. My Bro in law had a choice of there or hopkins and he chose Baylor. Must mean summat:D

and having lived in Texas, the only place I would willinlgly live is Dam B (where my family has land) or waaaay south along the broder, or Austen. Austen rocks!

They filmed Office Space in Austin. Enough said. :D

PANTERA
yea but what do we do with all the ones here now? I mean, 12 MILLION? And how do we keep them from walking back over the border when we DO deport them? Should we jail them all? What about their kids who were born here? THere are levels and levels, you know?

I am honestly not sure what to do about it all, but even after the congress has dumped this issue it bothers me. It's about border control dammit!


They filmed Office Space in Austin. Enough said. :D

I never knew this. My fathter called me a couple of months ago (he lives in Texas btw) babbling about this "new" movie I had to see. Office space. Old people are funny!

I should of known you are from Texas. Highest proportion of bad educations in the world, per capita.

See, here's where that "cite" business is used.

You need to show proof that your claim is correct. Until you do, it is a blatant lie.

But, I'll provide counterdata, anyway;

Texas ranks as 25th out of fifty; Louisiana is 44th.

But, even Louisiana ranks better than California at 47th.
-- http://www.statestats.com/edrank06.htm

So, you were saying?

PANTERA!

now i know why you got your panties all up your crack! well get over it. I'm a cajun. It's my job to make fun of ya'll!:D

I could give a rat's ass who you are or what you think of Texas. I don't really care for it myself, as my loc comment shows.

However, I knew a fair number of the kids involved in the bonfire fiasco, so I felt your joke was in very poor taste. While it wasn't a stunning moment of brilliance, laying the accusation at A&M's feet is ridiculous drivel, and claiming Texans are typically dumb is like saying blacks steal, mexicans are lazy, or Cajuns are dumbass backwater fucks that can barely speak their own language{s} and who eat heavily-spiced feces, claiming it's real food.

Generalizations are bad.

Swift company, a meat packing business, is being sued by it's ex-workers who claim that the company hired illegal aliens in order to drive down wages. I wish them good luck in their lawsuit and I hope that this starts a trend of workers suing their employers for this kind of unfair hiring.

What the illegal aliens are doing is similar to what scabs do when a union workforce is on strike. They're weakening the collective bargaining power of the legal workers by taking the jobs for significantly less money. If you believe in the rights of labor and in honest pay for honest work you shouldn't be in favor of illegal aliens taking jobs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/5EFFBBE519B43B1D8625724900120A09?OpenDocument

you guys don't want aliens and we have to apply to the government to please let them in...strange world we live in....

and having lived in Texas, the only place I would willinlgly live is Dam B (where my family has land) or waaaay south along the broder, or Austen. Austen rocks!

That's "Austin."

And, you WEREN'T educated in Texas schools.

Of course, neither was I until my last years. Up to junior high in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Another fun tactic is when unions strike based on political agendas and workers play along because it's a good excuse not to work...even funnier is when workers strike because they feel their rights are being threatened (e.g. a mandatory performance evaluation scheme is introduced).

However, I think the people that sued the company are absolutely right and the companie's management is going to pay for its stupidity...

workers play along because it's a good excuse not to work...

What's wrong with that?

Another fun tactic is when unions strike based on political agendas and workers play along because it's a good excuse not to work...

I think they'd rather get paid than skip work. Wise up.

Out of interest, Myseneum, what do you do? You seem pretty unsympethetic.

Ex-stealth engineer that lost my job when the USSR collapsed. Now doing IT in Dallas.

My sympathy lies with those who better themselves, not who keep others down.

A union that prevents others from working, rather than making themselves better and more competetive is something I despise.

PANTERA
yea but what do we do with all the ones here now? I mean, 12 MILLION? And how do we keep them from walking back over the border when we DO deport them? Should we jail them all? What about their kids who were born here? THere are levels and levels, you know?

I am honestly not sure what to do about it all, but even after the congress has dumped this issue it bothers me. It's about border control dammit!


give them all work permits so you at least know who they are, and where they are.....put a time limit on the permit(can be renewed).....when the job ceases to exist out they go.....

Pantera, tough. Sorry they were your friends and all but I have lost friends to much better causes than their bonfire. If they weren't smart enough to actually engineer that damn thing properly, Darwin Award them. I know more than enough about drunk frat boys to know what happened that day without much real investigation. It was a hell of a thing, but I don't pity someone dumb enough to build a thousand foot tower of logs without any actual engineering.

And No Myseneum, I didn not go to a texas school. I went to a private school where I learned proper spelling (which I don't use on teh intraweb) and science and mathmatics. Then I went to UCLA, where we all know no one knows anything and everybody is either gay, liberal, or gay and liberal.

Why is it that you people claim to believe so strongly in the right of the employer to set whatever conditions of employment she wants,

"She?"

but when the union successfully pressures the employer to make one such condition "join the union," you scream in protest?

What right does the lower-than-scum union have to dictate to another that they MUST join their union? How dare they presume to have the authority to tell another to join their misbegotten organization.

Show me a union that helps to improve things for their members, and I'll support that one. But, a union that forces others to do something against their will and I'll fight to get that union criminalized, disbanded and its leaders imprisoned.

I think they'd rather get paid than skip work. Wise up.

Wise up. There are loads of "public service" workers who constitute a mass of the most incompetent sloths I've ever seen. Workers don't strike just when they don't get paid, many times it happens when they demand raises that are simply unrealistic for their social and professional context (and there are loads of examples of this).

give them all work permits so you at least know who they are, and where they are.....put a time limit on the permit(can be renewed).....when the job ceases to exist out they go.....

But THAT would be allowing criminals to stay in america *cringes in fear* they might...molest me.:eek:

What right does the lower-than-scum union have to dictate to another that they MUST join their union?

There is no "must." The worker can always just get another job.

You know - just like EVERY OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.

Why does this particular one make you so angry?

I think they'd rather get paid than skip work. Wise up.

They get paid.

A neighbor worked at General Motors in Arlington, Texas. When they went on strike, they received 95% of their pay while lazing about.

They get paid.

A neighbor worked at General Motors in Arlington, Texas. When they went on strike, they received 95% of their pay while lazing about.

"She?"
What right does the lower-than-scum union have to dictate to another that they MUST join their union? How dare they presume to have the authority to tell another to join their misbegotten organization.
Show me a union that helps to improve things for their members, and I'll support that one. But, a union that forces others to do something against their will and I'll fight to get that union criminalized, disbanded and its leaders imprisoned.

it must be hard being in that top 1% of America, eh? Designed a fighter plane, moved to Texas where you have loads of wetbacks bringing you mint julips on the veranda. Watching them push lawn mowers, and complaining to your wife that those sorry working class troublemakers should all be hosswhipped cause they are tryin to o'ganize.

yeah. Must be hard.;)

When they went on strike, they received 95% of their pay while lazing about.

From whom?

But THAT would be allowing criminals to stay in america *cringes in fear* they might...molest me.:eek:

but by screening them and giving 12 million permits at least you'll know those with permits aren't criminals......criminals will still sneak in but they won't have the proper documentation......

it must be hard being in that top 1% of America, eh? Designed a fighter plane, moved to Texas where you have loads of wetbacks bringing you mint julips on the veranda. Watching them push lawn mowers, and complaining to your wife that those sorry working class troublemakers should all be hosswhipped cause they are tryin to o'ganize.

yeah. Must be hard.;)

LMAO!

They get paid.

A neighbor worked at General Motors in Arlington, Texas. When they went on strike, they received 95% of their pay while lazing about.

so.... pay received while on strike comes from contributions from their union dues, it's their own money not the companies....

There is no "must." The worker can always just get another job.

So can the union worker, instead of having the unmitigated gall to instruct the employer on their hiring practices.

You know - just like EVERY OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.

Except the employer didn't make the condition - the snake-belly union did.

Why does this particular one make you so angry?

"This one?"

I despise virtualy all unions. I do not know of a single one that is anything more than scurrilous.

A company belongs to its owner, not its employees. Just simple property rights dictates that the union is not entitled to tell an employer what it can and can not do with his own property.

More Mint, Boy!

it must be hard being in that top 1% of America, eh? Designed a fighter plane, moved to Texas where you have loads of wetbacks bringing you mint julips on the veranda. Watching them push lawn mowers, and complaining to your wife that those sorry working class troublemakers should all be hosswhipped cause they are tryin to o'ganize.

yeah. Must be hard.;)

Are you sane?

From whom?

In all likelyhood from the funds saved up by the United Auto Workers union.

Are you sane?

*giggles merrily*


that was the best comeback I have ever got in here:D

Except the employer didn't make the condition - the snake-belly union did.

Yeah... by collectively bargaining for it WITH THE EMPLOYER.

:rolleyes:

From whom?

That I do not know.

Does it matter?

They were paid to not work. How is it relevant where the money came from?

While at General Dynamics, the union threatened a strike and the local police set up plans to ensure that we could safely get to work. Someone had been killed the last time they struck and cars were vandalized, even destroyed.

The particular union would ship in out of state protestors so that locals wouldn't be doing the criminal acts.

Yeah, unions are just peachy keen...

So can the union worker, instead of having the unmitigated gall to instruct the employer on their hiring practices.



Except the employer didn't make the condition - the snake-belly union did.



"This one?"

I despise virtualy all unions. I do not know of a single one that is anything more than scurrilous.

A company belongs to its owner, not its employees. Just simple property rights dictates that the union is not entitled to tell an employer what it can and can not do with his own property.
Waaaaah! I hate unions! Go screw.

The company belongs to the stockholders, and the labor the company purchases belongs to the workers. The Union is just all the workers getting together and deciding how much to charge for their labor. You've got a problem with that? You think that a free labor market solves everything? Crack open a history book and see what the labor situation in this country was like before Unions reformed it.

In all likelyhood from the funds saved up by the United Auto Workers union.

My point exactly.

They were paid to not work. How is it relevant where the money came from?

Undoubtedly it came from the union's strike fund.

In essence, they were being "paid" THEIR OWN MONEY.

In all likelyhood from the funds saved up by the United Auto Workers union.

Whereever it may have come from, they still got paid.

This neighbor, because the strikes were like clockwork, scheduled his deer hunts around them. They were just a paid vacation for him.

Waaaaah! I hate unions! Go screw.

The company belongs to the stockholders, and the labor the company purchases belongs to the workers. The Union is just all the workers getting together and deciding how much to charge for their labor. You've got a problem with that? You think that a free labor market solves everything? Crack open a history book and see what the labor situation in this country was like before Unions reformed it.

no that would mean HE is actually tryiung to prove himself wrong. WHy would he do that when he can jus have an opinion justified by rumer inuendo and bad education (I just had to throw that last one in there):D

Go screw.

Why interrupt your fun?

That I do not know.

Does it matter?

They were paid to not work. How is it relevant where the money came from?

While at General Dynamics, the union threatened a strike and the local police set up plans to ensure that we could safely get to work. Someone had been killed the last time they struck and cars were vandalized, even destroyed.

The particular union would ship in out of state protestors so that locals wouldn't be doing the criminal acts.

Yeah, unions are just peachy keen...

They are using funds that they have saved up as a union. What next? Are you going to freeze every worker's bank accounts if he goes on strike?

So a local union is alleged to have done a couple of illegal acts. How many companies have done illegal acts? Enron, Arthur Andersen, Swift, the list goes on. I don't see you wanting to ban corporations like you want to ban unions.

Whereever it may have come from, they still got paid.

This neighbor, because the strikes were like clockwork, scheduled his deer hunts around them. They were just a paid vacation for him.

They got money from a fund that they themselves had contributed to. I suppose you want to ban bank accounts because they could similarly be used to support a family through a strike.

I've worked union and non-union jobs and I enjoyed being in a union. Contrary to what the ignorant might think, being unionized doesn't mean you don't work hard. It mostly means that the employer can't arbitrarily treat you like dirt. I've seen an abusive asst. manager fired for generally being a dick and verbally abusing people at a union job, whereas at non-union workplaces, you can either quit, report him to the owner/president/other authority figure and hope for the best, or report him to employment standards people if the abuse becomes criminal.

Everyone knows that there are some problems with unions where they encourage people to not work as hard, but those problems are as old as the ancient guilds. Many European and Asian countries do a better job of a collaborative union/employer relationship that's based on a partnership. The American model of employer versus worker is not a good one. There are always going to be incompetent people or lazy bastards and there should be a way to get rid of them. But for the most part, people are happy to work hard for their employer if they feel like they are valued and that their hard work is rewarded.

The best companies are the ones that don't need a union because they "get it", they give their employees good compensation and benefits so their workers have no reason to unionize. That in turn gives the employer the flexibility to fire the unproductive workers and compensate their workers based on merit, instead of having to pay all workers on the same scale and promote based on seniority.

They are using funds that they have saved up as a union. What next? Are you going to freeze every worker's bank accounts if he goes on strike?

Perhaps, if you kept up with the thread, you'd be more relevant.

This is what I was responding to;

I think they'd rather get paid than skip work. Wise up.

So, they skipped work AND got paid.

Doesn't matter where the money came from, they were still getting checks.

If I were an employer and someone went on strike, I'd evaluate my work force. If the worker were not valuable or could be easily replaced, I'd fire him and hire someone else.

If he were valuable or not easily replaced, I'd see about meeting his demands.

I don't see you wanting to ban corporations like you want to ban unions.

Not the topic of the thread.

They are using funds that they have saved up as a union. What next? Are you going to freeze every worker's bank accounts if he goes on strike?

So a local union is alleged to have done a couple of illegal acts. How many companies have done illegal acts? Enron, Arthur Andersen, Swift, the list goes on. I don't see you wanting to ban corporations like you want to ban unions.

erm...you forgot lockhead. or lockhead martin. or martin marietta.

Those high tech airplane makers have a history of doing the illegal and then trying to cover it up.
Japanese Lockheed Scandal
In 1976, Lockheed was involved in a major scandal involving the Japanese Marubeni Corporation and several high ranking members of Japanese political, business and underworld circles. Lockheed had hired underworld figure Yoshio Kodama as a consultant in order to influence Japanese airlines, including the Japanese All Nippon Airways, to purchase the L-1011 aircraft instead of the DC-10.

It was revealed that Lockheed had paid approximately $3 million in bribes to the office of Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka for aid in the matter. The resulting judicial process carried on for a decade, and led to the arrest of Tanaka (after his resignation due to another scandal), among others. In the United States, Lockheed chairman of the board Shawn Radtke resigned from his position.


[edit] Netherlands Lockheed Scandal
In the Netherlands, the "Lockheed scandal" related to the purchase of F-104G Starfighters for the airforce in which Prince Bernhard was implicated in charges of receiving bribes from Lockheed in order to ensure the aircraft would win out over the Mirage V for the purchase contract. The scandal also directly gave rise to the American Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made it illegal for American persons and entities to bribe foreign government officials.


[edit] Germany Lockheed Scandal
Many senior figures in the West German Air Force (such as Erich Hartmann) voiced their doubts about the Lockheed F-104 and considered it a fundamentally flawed and unsafe aircraft, strongly opposing its adoption by the German Air Force. Events subsequently validated the low opinion of the aircraft (282 crashes and 115 German pilots killed on the F-104 in non-combat missions; allegations of bribes culminating in the Lockheed scandal).

Perhaps, if you kept up with the thread, you'd be more relevant.

This is what I was responding to;



So, they skipped work AND got paid.

Doesn't matter where the money came from, they were still getting checks.



I think it matters very much when it was, in effect, their own money.

Perhaps, if you kept up with the thread, you'd be more relevant.

This is what I was responding to;



So, they skipped work AND got paid.

Doesn't matter where the money came from, they were still getting checks.



Your argument makes no sense. they in fact did NOT get paid for the period they were not working. THey dipped into funds they had saved while working in order to live on them in times of trouble. LIke when their corporation was screwing them over. WHich is why they unionized in the first place. And which is completely relevant to the topic at hand. You're dancing but it isn't going to work on that issue.

they in fact did NOT get paird for the period they were not working. THey dipped into funds they had saved while working in order to live on them in times of trouble.

Fact, eh?

How do you know?

I can make an equal claim that they were being paid by General Motors as a condition of their contract if they went on strike.

Fact, eh?

How do you know?

I can make an equal claim that they were being paid by General Motors as a condition of their contract if they went on strike.

Well considering that it's standard for unions to put away part of the union dues to support workers in case of a strike, and that agreeing to a contract where the company pays the employees 95% of their pay while they're on strike is just too stupid for any company to agree to it, I'd say you're wrong.

Fact, eh?

How do you know?

I can make an equal claim that they were being paid by General Motors as a condition of their contract if they went on strike.

I have been in a couple of unions. This is SOP. NEver heard of ANY corporation paying people while on strike. Which is more likely?

In the case of autoworkers that 95% probably comes from the auto companies.
It is also the reason that they never like to close down factories and lay off workers – the contract states that they still have to pay 95% of salary plus maintain benefits for the workers for one to two years after closing the plant. Which is why they offer tens of thousands of dollars to get people to retire early.

Unions have screwed over the auto industry in the US. Without the unions, American cars would cost on average around $3k less than they currently do (at least according to The Economist). That is a substantial price difference that would both benefit every consumer in the world who wanted to buy a car, make the American auto industry more competitive (which benefits both investors and workers), and helps improve the US economy.

I have been in a couple of unions. This is SOP. NEver heard of ANY corporation paying people while on strike. Which is more likely?

I agree. But, given your reticence to provide any sort of substantiation, I'm supposed to just take your word for it?

As I said, I don't know where they got their money from; I only know that they got it. So, they weren't suffering while on strike as the earlier poster implied.

In the case of autoworkers that 95% probably comes from the auto companies.
It is also the reason that they never like to close down factories and lay off workers – the contract states that they still have to pay 95% of salary plus maintain benefits for the workers for one to two years after closing the plant. Which is why they offer tens of thousands of dollars to get people to retire early.

Unions have screwed over the auto industry in the US. Without the unions, American cars would cost on average around $3k less than they currently do (at least according to The Economist). That is a substantial price difference that would both benefit every consumer in the world who wanted to buy a car, make the American auto industry more competitive (which benefits both investors and workers), and helps improve the US economy.
We're talking about a strike, not closing the plant. I don't believe any company would sign a contract agreeing to pay the workers 95% of their salary while they strike.


Yes, but US cars would still suck. Three thousand dollars isn't that big of a deal if the difference in quality is so great. I had a Buick who's transmission went before it hit 60,000. I had a Mercury that was just one problem after another. I'm on my second Nissan, and doing pretty well.

In the case of autoworkers that 95% probably comes from the auto companies.
It is also the reason that they never like to close down factories and lay off workers – the contract states that they still have to pay 95% of salary plus maintain benefits for the workers for one to two years after closing the plant. Which is why they offer tens of thousands of dollars to get people to retire early.

Unions have screwed over the auto industry in the US. Without the unions, American cars would cost on average around $3k less than they currently do (at least according to The Economist). That is a substantial price difference that would both benefit every consumer in the world who wanted to buy a car, make the American auto industry more competitive (which benefits both investors and workers), and helps improve the US economy.


erm...no. It comes from the union. THere are protections against being forced out of work by a closing factory, and unions have driven the retirement funds up. But the real problem with retirements funds is that the companies never actually funded them, so now they are in deep financial doo doo as they struggle to cover retirement costs. Thier fault not the unions.

I agree. But, given your reticence to provide any sort of substantiation, I'm supposed to just take your word for it?

As I said, I don't know where they got their money from; I only know that they got it. So, they weren't suffering while on strike as the earlier poster implied.


You find it. I have just tried just to please you. I owrked for UC for two years recently. I paid money into a fund that covered us if we struck. We struck, I got paid out of union funds. What more do you want me to say?
I don't remember the first union much--I was just a kid. But it was in Cally and I am sure it is around still.

Yes, but US cars would still suck. Three thousand dollars isn't that big of a deal if the difference in quality is so great. I had a Buick who's transmission went before it hit 60,000. I had a Mercury that was just one problem after another. I'm on my second Nissan, and doing pretty well.

I have a 96 Ford Explorer that has 214,000 miles on it. The engine still purrs like a kitten...

you're an engineer. It better still run good. I'd never hire you otherwise :)

here. wikipedia again. finally found the strike fund thingy:

Members of most trade unions pay a portion of their wages to their local to support the union's internal government, pay for any legal representation, and contribute to a strike fund. Many unions also spend a considerable portion of their members' dues to lobby and campaign for politicians they support. In 2005, a non-election year, the AFL-CIO spent 30 percent of its budget on these activities.

All active members of a given union pay dues, which are ordinarily source deducted by the employer and remitted directly to the international office of the union, which keeps a portion and send the rest on to the local union office.

In collective bargaining agreements, the wage level is typically prescribed on the basis of seniority and attained education and rank. For instance, a journeyman makes more money than an apprentice. The dues are typically a percentage of gross wages but may also involve set rates per hour plus contributions to certain funds operated by the international union office. For example, members of the United Steelworkers contribute to a "humanity fund", which is a charitable payment to third world relief.

I have a 96 Ford Explorer that has 214,000 miles on it. The engine still purrs like a kitten...

How very nice for you. I can only speak for the vehicles I've owned. The American ones sucked.

...the labor the company purchases belongs to the workers. The Union is just all the workers getting together and deciding how much to charge for their labor

Right, and it's up to the management to decide whether they feel the price is right/fair/affordable or not. You wouldn't pay $200 for a hamburguer, would you? Yet many times you see workers demanding much more than their labor is worth in the job market.

Right, and it's up to the management to decide whether they feel the price is right/fair/affordable or not. You wouldn't pay $200 for a hamburguer, would you? Yet many times you see workers demanding much more than their labor is worth in the job market.

and don't those companies have a right not to sign a contract with the labor union?

Right, and it's up to the management to decide whether they feel the price is right/fair/affordable or not. You wouldn't pay $200 for a hamburguer, would you? Yet many times you see workers demanding much more than their labor is worth in the job market.

Fine, but introducing a glut of unskilled, illegal workers throws off the market. It upsets supply and demand. This thread was initially about the illegals who were being used to drive down wages artificially.

This does not in any way stop companies from hiring "temporary" /"scab" Labor it is trying to stop the from hiring illegal "tempoary"/"scab" labor.

What we need is a balance between unions and the corporations. We've seen the kind of abusive stuff companies will pull if they can. We've also seen corrupt unions with 5 people getting paid for doing the work of one.

We need a happy medium,, where the unions can protect the workers, but they stll have to earn their money.
But don't forget that a union doesn't have to be corrupt in order to create problems. If given too much power to make demands, we end up with things like people who get convicted of a crime or something like that, but can't be terminated because of prior contractual union demands. So the employer is forced to put them on permanent payed leave.

It's even happened with jobs where the employe worked around or with children. A school teacher if I remember correctly.