Jump to content

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Thanks to people like Joe Biden, Unions are absolutely above the law. 

Yeah? So are you suggesting the rank and file are voting against their own interests when many of them casted ballots for Trump? 

  • Author
On 12/20/2024 at 8:54 PM, Phillyterp85 said:

Yup for sure.   Ironic you bring that up, our entire C-suite just got fired by our Board.  

Yep, I've been on the C-suite side of that.  Tough but there is normally a nice hefty package included so it isn't all bad.

  • Author
On 12/20/2024 at 9:51 PM, vikas83 said:

Eh, I can only speak from my own experiences. My dad was a chemical engineer at an oil refinery where the operators were unionized. They'd catch guys high and couldn't fire them because of the union rules; had to send them to rehab. The issue with companies we have owned would be trying to fire more senior workers -- sometimes the union rules made it last in, first out.

Back when I was at Verizon we almost always chose not to bother even trying due to how onerous the process was to fire someone and that was for non-union professional types.

21 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah? So are you suggesting the rank and file are voting against their own interests when many of them casted ballots for Trump? 

I'm suggesting that, these days, Unions and their political support are all about money.  Union's produce an enormous amount of money and then use a chunk of it to fund democratic campaigns for people like Joe Biden...who then do their bidding in congress.  In fact, Joe Biden made an entire career out of pandering to the Unions and helped to revive them off life support while VP under Obama.  

But to answer your question directly, I think that the Union members who voted for Trump saw through this façade and realized that its all just been a political money game.  They voted for the candidate who they thought would actually represent them, and not the Union that rules over them.

You assume that the Unions have the best interest of their workers in mind.  If that was true, they wouldn't be funding the Biden campaign to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars while a sizeable percentage of their members were voting for Trump.  Nor would they be intimidating and strong arming their members to pay dues if they chose not to.  

48 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

They voted for the candidate who they thought would actually represent them, and not the Union that rules over them.

:roll:

So instead of voting for the party that allowed them to be "above the law" according to you, they're instead voting for the candidate that would give them less power and control. Makes perfect sense!

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

:roll:

So instead of voting for the party that allowed them to be "above the law" according to you, they're instead voting for the candidate that would give them less power and control. Makes perfect sense!

It makes sense if you try not to think about it.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

It makes sense if you try not to think about it.

Or if your true personal experience and "direct” dealings with unions is watching Hoffa and listening to trump.

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

:roll:

So instead of voting for the party that allowed them to be "above the law" according to you, they're instead voting for the candidate that would give them less power and control. Makes perfect sense!

Assuming there is even a point to your nonsense, you're wrong. Many Union voters have shifted to support Trump.

The UAW was projecting that nearly 40% of their workers at Ford were going to vote for Trump prior to the election.  Even the Teamsters didn't endorse a 2024 presidential candidate due to pressure from their members who were supportive of Trump.  That is unheard of when the Democratic candidate is Joe Biden.  Last cycle, fireman and police unions either endorsed Trump or declined to endorse at all.  Municipal unions either endorsed trump or didn't endorse at all.  I could go on and on.  

unions should not be allowed to endorse/support any political candidates. 

6 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

unions should not be allowed to endorse/support any political candidates. 

They should exist only in very specific circumstances for independent contracts who want collective bargaining power.  The rest should be eradicated.  

That being said, I find it hysterical that after a century or more of unilateral support of Democrats, tens of billions in donations, active campaigning for the DNC, etc, etc...the moment some Union members start to lean right...NOW Unions should not be allowed to support political parties.  

Obviously I agree with you, but your timing is suspect. 

 

On 12/22/2024 at 7:56 AM, The Norseman said:

Yea, I've seen plenty of those too.  But, I'm talking about a board room with a handful of business leaders (mostly Finance and HR People) who have spent months calculating out what the business can afford to pay without laying people off.  Then the Union leaders come in with a bunch of thugs that look like they are straight out of the Sopranos. It doesn't matter how good the company offer is, they slam their fists on tables, call people names and I've even seen them make personal threats.  Usually only the leader and his finance guy talk, the rest are just there to stare people down and look intimidating.  Most are there only to strong arm...very few actually understand the numbers of come to negotiate in any sort of an honest fashion.  If an executive behaved the way many of these Union leaders to, they'd be fired on the spot. 

Thanks to people like Joe Biden, Unions are absolutely above the law.  I honestly don't know a single business person who's ever personally dealt with Union leadership, Republican or Democrat, that doesn't think they need to be eradicated.  And, to be fair, most of the actual Union guys I talk to complain about the dues and feel pressured to keep up their membership...or else.  

What usually happens is that the Union gets their way and the business has to cut elsewhere to compensate.  You might say that's a good thing, but "cutting" is almost always people as it is by far the biggest expense.  So yea, the unionized shop worker floor guys may keep their jobs and get a raise, but the order entry, customer service and facilities people all take the fall.  I've had to lay off a lot of people over the years because we spent more than we could afford on the new union contract.  Then to watch some of the Unionized workforce act like a**h*les and do a horrible job because they can't be touched by management is about more than I can handle. 

Now, look, I understand the need for unions for independent contractors like electricians, wood workers and truckers.  It helps them negotiate better group rates for health insurance, benefits, etc.  That being said, business have their own regulations, controls and employee protections.  If a company doesn't pay well, or they treat their employees poorly, the free market allows their employees to leave any time they want. Businesses don't ever need to be unionized.  

And don't even get me started on public sector unions.  What an absolute joke. 

Again I fully agree this happens, but acting as if they're the only ones acting in bad faith is silly. If we're talking about anecdotes my wife and I have both been a part of negotiations with hospital groups where executives lie about group profitability (and yes we had proof), misused government COVID funds, and take on massive bonuses while cutting funding/benefits for staff. Hell just look at that recent BCBS decision to not cover anesthesia beyond a certain arbitrary marker. That wasn't a carefully crafted decision based on what they could afford. That was a ploy at increasing profit because they thought they could get away with it. It's crap but more and more doctors are unionizing because they don't see another way out. 

Like I said before, opposite sides of the same **** coin. By in large they both are all about their own interests and profits, and it always makes me laugh a bit when they **** about each other. 

16 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Again I fully agree this happens, but acting as if they're the only ones acting in bad faith is silly. If we're talking about anecdotes my wife and I have both been a part of negotiations with hospital groups where executives lie about group profitability (and yes we had proof), misused government COVID funds, and take on massive bonuses while cutting funding/benefits for staff. Hell just look at that recent BCBS decision to not cover anesthesia beyond a certain arbitrary marker. That wasn't a carefully crafted decision based on what they could afford. That was a ploy at increasing profit because they thought they could get away with it. It's crap but more and more doctors are unionizing because they don't see another way out. 

Like I said before, opposite sides of the same **** coin. By in large they both are all about their own interests and profits, and it always makes me laugh a bit when they **** about each other. 

Not to mention the biggest gripe from nursing unions being the pt provider ratio. I’ve been hearing some stuff about nurses getting shafted with up to 12 pts on their shift. I know the travel nursing gigs aren’t what they were during Rona, so you’d think there’s a decent enough pool to get staff nurses going to where they need to be. 
 

I think there’s an issue where upper managements in a lot of industries can only look at volume when they are gauging costs. A lot of people in mgmt have trouble conceptualizing losses due to safety and accuracy issues, which are exponentially exacerbated by shorted labor usage, but imo they’re the costliest areas to F up in. 

41 minutes ago, Bill said:

Not to mention the biggest gripe from nursing unions being the pt provider ratio. I’ve been hearing some stuff about nurses getting shafted with up to 12 pts on their shift. I know the travel nursing gigs aren’t what they were during Rona, so you’d think there’s a decent enough pool to get staff nurses going to where they need to be. 
 

I think there’s an issue where upper managements in a lot of industries can only look at volume when they are gauging costs. A lot of people in mgmt have trouble conceptualizing losses due to safety and accuracy issues, which are exponentially exacerbated by shorted labor usage, but imo they’re the costliest areas to F up in. 

Yup. The staffing at my wife's hospital has been downright abysmal for years and it's got worse after they cut benefits for their nurses. They've also cut their anesthesia department, and replaced them with residents, and tried getting rid of MD surgical assists for major surgeries. Patients have died as a result. 

Meanwhile the executives have all had their salary increase by about 50% over the past 3 years and recently bought 2 more hospitals in the region. 

Again, Unions can be absolute crap.  But you can spare me with the whole "carefully calculated what they can afford" BS when it comes to executives and their priorities in business management. 

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

They should exist only in very specific circumstances for independent contracts who want collective bargaining power.  The rest should be eradicated.  

That being said, I find it hysterical that after a century or more of unilateral support of Democrats, tens of billions in donations, active campaigning for the DNC, etc, etc...the moment some Union members start to lean right...NOW Unions should not be allowed to support political parties.  

Obviously I agree with you, but your timing is suspect. 

this is nothing new from me. they have no business being involved in politics of any kind. represent your workers but shut up otherwise. 

i know a ton of union workers and a good amount of them have been longtime republicans. for years their money has been going to candidates who they vote against. 

 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

 

Again I fully agree this happens, but acting as if they're the only ones acting in bad faith is silly. If we're talking about anecdotes my wife and I have both been a part of negotiations with hospital groups where executives lie about group profitability (and yes we had proof), misused government COVID funds, and take on massive bonuses while cutting funding/benefits for staff. Hell just look at that recent BCBS decision to not cover anesthesia beyond a certain arbitrary marker. That wasn't a carefully crafted decision based on what they could afford. That was a ploy at increasing profit because they thought they could get away with it. It's crap but more and more doctors are unionizing because they don't see another way out. 

Like I said before, opposite sides of the same **** coin. By in large they both are all about their own interests and profits, and it always makes me laugh a bit when they **** about each other. 

They are not opposite sides of the same coin and it's not even close. Misrepresenting profitability in a public company is a crime. Misuse of government funds is a crime.  Treating your employees poorly leads to attrition, and cutting benefits inappropriately leads to lawsuits. 

Companies and executives are heavily regulated.

I don't discount that you have seen some execs that have behaved badly, but they do so at enormous risk to themselves. 

16 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Yup. The staffing at my wife's hospital has been downright abysmal for years and it's got worse after they cut benefits for their nurses. They've also cut their anesthesia department, and replaced them with residents, and tried getting rid of MD surgical assists for major surgeries. Patients have died as a result. 

Meanwhile the executives have all had their salary increase by about 50% over the past 3 years and recently bought 2 more hospitals in the region. 

Again, Unions can be absolute crap.  But you can spare me with the whole "carefully calculated what they can afford" BS when it comes to executives and their priorities in business management. 

Executives jobs are to raise revenue while cutting cost.  They are always playing with fire and they are well incented to do so.  I understand that it sucks when it happens to you , but this is how our system works. You can't blame the executives for doing exactly what they are being asked to do.  

6 hours ago, The Norseman said:

They are not opposite sides of the same coin and it's not even close. Misrepresenting profitability in a public company is a crime. Misuse of government funds is a crime.  Treating your employees poorly leads to attrition, and cutting benefits inappropriately leads to lawsuits. 

Companies and executives are heavily regulated.

I don't discount that you have seen some execs that have behaved badly, but they do so at enormous risk to themselves. 

First of all, misrepresenting profitability and fund usage to the public is a crime. Misrepresenting that to your employees in the moment is much more of a gray area. For example, one department was told it's operating at a loss and that they had to increase everyone's hours to make up for it, otherwise there's be layoffs. Only for it to be discovered that they did not factor in several secondary sources of income produced by that department.

Second of all, spare me with the whole, "the law will take care of it" BS. Stolen employee wages amount to billions every year and there's F all the average worker can do about it without banding together. 

And thirdly, Unions are also regulated. Strikes have to be deemed "lawful", need to give a certain amount of warning, strikers must be present and actively picketing  during the strike (ever wonder why so many workers contracts expire in the winter?) etc. 

6 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Executives jobs are to raise revenue while cutting cost.  They are always playing with fire and they are well incented to do so.  I understand that it sucks when it happens to you , but this is how our system works. You can't blame the executives for doing exactly what they are being asked to do.  

This is EXACTLY my point. Executive jobs are solely to increase shareholder profit without thought of morality. That is the way our system is set up, ok. Then why is it surprising that Unions then arose with the sole goal of increasing their own income?  How can you pretend that one is "part of the system" but another must have some moralistic responsibility to the greater good of the company? 

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

First of all, misrepresenting profitability and fund usage to the public is a crime. Misrepresenting that to your employees in the moment is much more of a gray area. For example, one department was told it's operating at a loss and that they had to increase everyone's hours to make up for it, otherwise there's be layoffs. Only for it to be discovered that they did not factor in several secondary sources of income produced by that department.

Second of all, spare me with the whole, "the law will take care of it" BS. Stolen employee wages amount to billions every year and there's F all the average worker can do about it with banding together. 

And thirdly, Unions are also regulated. Strikes have to be deemed "lawful", need to give a certain amount of warning, strikers must be present and actively picketing  during the strike (ever wonder why so many workers contracts expire in the winter?) etc. 

This is EXACTLY my point. Executive jobs are solely to increase shareholder profit without thought of morality. That is the way our system is set up, ok. Then why is it surprising that Unions then arose with the sole goal of increasing their own income?  How can you pretend that one is "part of the system" but another must have some moralistic responsibility to the greater good of the company? 

First of all, it's entirely false that morality is not factored into an executives decision making.  Executives today are directly bonused on employee satisfaction, company sustainability, charitable outreach and a all sorts of other philanthropic things.  Maybe in the old days morality was an issue, but not today.  

Unions work in contrast to the organizations that their members support.  An employee who works for a company must work hard, lest they be laid off.  But if they preform well, they get a raise and get promoted.  Unions negotiate on behalf of the masses and have almost no internal controls around performance.  So, yes, they take good care of their worst performing members.  However, their best performers would be better off without the union, as they are lumped in with all the other members, and ultimately fall short of what they could have achieved on their own.  As a result, the entire workforce is LESS productive under a union which makes the company cut elsewhere...which usually includes, good, hard working (but non unionized) employees. 

The corporate system is guilty of cutting corners to save a few bucks, sure, but at least it exists in a pure meritocracy.  

Unions destroy the meritocracy and hurt the the people that are working hard, while offering nothing to change the capitalist system for the better.  

3 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

unions should not be allowed to endorse/support any political candidates. 

Nor should Billionaires and Corporations.

5 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Assuming there is even a point to your nonsense, you're wrong. Many Union voters have shifted to support Trump.

The UAW was projecting that nearly 40% of their workers at Ford were going to vote for Trump prior to the election.  Even the Teamsters didn't endorse a 2024 presidential candidate due to pressure from their members who were supportive of Trump.  That is unheard of when the Democratic candidate is Joe Biden.  Last cycle, fireman and police unions either endorsed Trump or declined to endorse at all.  Municipal unions either endorsed trump or didn't endorse at all.  I could go on and on.  

Dear God, you're slow. I have to spoon feed everything to you half-wits.

41 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Dear God, you're slow. I have to spoon feed everything to you half-wits.

Chiyo Chiyo

this is how i picture you

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

Chiyo Chiyo

this is how i picture you

Yep nailed it, bud

17 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Chiyo Chiyo

this is how i picture you

 

15 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yep nailed it, bud

see, even you two can get along. the christmas spirit is strong in here, folks!!!

8 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

see, even you two can get along. the christmas spirit is strong in here, folks!!!

 

IMG_4412.jpeg

50 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

 

see, even you two can get along. the christmas spirit is strong in here, folks!!!

it felt festive when i sent it

Create an account or sign in to comment