- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,436
- Reaction score
- 47,477
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
i am guessing their practices are primarily representing the employeri know a few labor lawyers that would disagree with that statement
if you are in the right - and you have good attorneys to display your company's innocence - then there is no reason to have your blood pressure elevatedwe live in a VERY litigious society....been sued so many times now, the paperwork no longer even raises my blood pressure
and i speculate that in each of those instances, had the employee not raised the grievance, there would have been no action by the company to settleHad to settle a couple....mostly sexual harassment from bad employees...happens when you have over 140 employees no matter how much training we do
absolutely. which party was negligentOne bad slip and fall on the premises...those types of things
only once for me, but have led litigation in a number of suits as the plaintiffBeen sued a number of times regarding employment
only because those employees were unable to prove their assertions. which is one of the things unions help employees to do. the collective group can accomplish much more than a single employeepeople claiming all sorts of things....not promoted.....not paid fairly.....unfair practices.....etc
lost exactly zero of these....settled none....
don't think i would agree with that. what prevents most potential litigation is that the employee is ignorant that they have a valid case. and in other instances, the employee is without the resources to engage in protracted litigation against a employer with deep pockets. another reason why a collective of employees can do what a solo employee cannoti think you will find in todays workplace, most employers are very aware of workers rights......
and they do everything in their power to make sure they are upheld......
depends on the employer. some hire so many lawyers, they would rather keep them working than settle. and others know they can out-spend the plaintiff, and run the clock in court. it's a viable strategy given their circumstances. they can run that clock on the union, too. which is why it is so important that the union have access to sufficient dues to afford to counter such a litigation strategynot doing so is just stupid business practice......and no one in business i know can afford to do business that way
So, is this a federal law that usurps states rights, or is it 50 laws that will need to be passed in all 50 states?You pass a law that says you can't fire without cause. OR a law that says you are not allowed to fire someone based on their political views. There are dozens of ways to word it so that a teacher doesn't get thrown out for any number of reasons. You don't need a union for these laws to exist.
So, is this a federal law that usurps states rights, or is it 50 laws that will need to be passed in all 50 states?
Now, let's say we get that/those laws passed, and let's further say that I'm a school administrator or a school board and I/we direct that science teachers stop teaching evolution and start teaching creationism instead. If some science teachers refuse, can we fire them? If so, on what basis? Cause? Refusing to follow orders?
The unions do push up wages for workers, but market pressures push back at pricing hikes. So to make the one on one comparison that wage hikes = price hikes while ignoring all other pressures on costs and prices isn't accurate. It's not just wages that effect prices. I'll say that wages CAN push prices up but not that it WILL push up prices.
and what will be the ramifications of that in terms of countries such as China, India, etc that supply so much of our consumer goods?
LOL
You've presented no facts, so your opinion is easy to ignore. The fact is the left decimates the right in spending and in political activity. Perhaps you should avoid proving you are woefully lacking in any true facts on the subject other than those you have been led to believe.
There are many who feel Americans cannot make changes to other countries who have their own culture and customs. This was an especially common cliche in the Middle East. Now you want to do it through trade?
Grant said:This would cripple the USA economically and would not have an effect anywhere. In fact the way to change people is to open the markets in order that cultures can change and adapt to modern times. We can already see the positive changes made in China and India through trade and how their countries are changing as a consequence. This is no time to return to revisit retrogressive areas such as Smoot–Hawley Act.
Sounds like you're trying to deny fundamental cost accounting principles here. Price increases aren't the market "pushing back" on the prices of their inputs. They are a direct reflection of the price of their inputs.
It will create jobs here to fill any void of lost imported goods with goods manufactured here.
LOL, that is really funny.
How so?
think about the labor costs
and? there is always a labor cost.
Lots of those things will become too expensive when made by 15 dollar an hour labor vs 1.50 an hour
There will be higher labor costs. And lower shipping costs. What you are saying is that this world cannot sustainably live without slave(ish) labor. I disagree.
Those who use overpriced labor are ultimately going to fail when competing with those who use underpriced or properly priced labor. American Labor-at unskilled levels is greatly overpriced
I disagree that our unskilled laborers are overpriced here. We have basic education and can read and write unlike the bulk of the third worlders out there. Doesn't sound like much but it is massive advantage in the field. I see it in the plumbing industry watching Mexican plumbers come in to our store vs American ones and many of the Mexican plumbers barely can even write their name (if they can), do basic math or, most importantly, express wtf it is they want. Communication skills are often beyond terrible. American unskilled labor can jump into basically any job and work it. From cashier to construction to whatever due to having some standard education.
very interesting. but I cannot agree with that
IMO... there is a honey spot balance point where a society can cover the costs of the building, manufacturing and maintenance of it's own self.
Demand is the push back.
It doesn't "push back" against union cost hikers, it gets up and leaves and shops elsewhere. Which is one of the main reasons union membership has declined and declined in the private sector and flocked to the public sector (where demand can't push back or get up and shop elsewhere).
Demand does push back against what it doesn't want. you are right... if it doesn't want that product it will shop elsewhere. My issue is the opening of the floodgates to where we feel that it's fine to shop child/slave/prison labor products on the same plateau of ethically produced products and knock down any barriers that expedite that.
Slippery slope fallacy, and not even related to what unions or their collective bargaining agreements do. The abuse is already prohibited by federal and state laws. Employers are not dragged through repeated collective bargaining negotiations every 2-3 years to make sure they aren't employing slave/prison/child labor. Unions serve no purpose related to that these days. They are not guardians against abuse, they are self-serving labor cartels.
What a straw man argument fallacy. I never said unions were bargaining "to make sure they aren't employing slave/prison/child labor." THey are bargaining for their members' benefits. Not foreign policy. OUr goverment, when signing free trade agreements, is essentially dropping barriers to those countries' labor and environmental practices. I have no idea where in the hell you came up with all that garbage in your post but it wasn't from me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?