Thrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 20,295
- Reaction score
- 9,801
- Location
- Texas, Vegas, Colombia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Seriously? That's even worse than I thought.
What happens if they're on the road and a bird hits a mirror and knocks it out of whack? Do they pull over and wait for a union approved maintenance guy to come out and adjust it back? (I'm being facetious, but it wouldn't knock me over if you said 'yes'.)
I am simply waiting for you to explain what you wrote and not simply pretend you are the smartest boy in class who can throw vitriolic crap around instead of facts and reason.
Lets start with your charge that I am right wing. Lets see the facts and your explanation for that accusation.
oh, it's BS alright as you have documented for meit's not "bs" .. it's common... especially in the trucking industry (Teamsters dominated)
what you are telling us is that management agreed to a contract in which its employees were limited in the functions they could fulfill...jobs are strictly defined and workers are not allowed to go beyond those definitions under the guise of stealing work from another worker.
so, you wanted the janitor to do two jobs: custodial and re-fuelingif this guy was hired as a fueler, there's nothing else he would be allowed to do....
if the terminal had a janitor, he wouldn't even be allowed to push a broom to fill his time when he wasn't fueling.
and yet you object to unionsI made a ton of money off of such "bs" rules... a ton.
these maintenance items that management agreed under contract that drivers were not obligated to performmy night were busy making service call to the terminals to do things the drivers weren't allowed to do.. such as adjusting their mirrors, checking/adding oil to their trucks.. replacing a mudflap or a marker light bulb.
that personal windfall, and yet you object to union rights. how oddif I could string together 2 or 3 simple jobs, I could make close to a grand a night.
I absolutely loved hearing that phone ring at night.:lol:
so, management of the unionized company, recognizing it had a problem with aligning its mirrors, opted NOT to purchase electric mirrors but instead hire another classification of worker to perform that task manuallyConway ( non-union) is another story... there were no simple night calls for me there... they actually had their drivers do the simple things.
being a non-union company, they also had much better equipment.. such as trucks with electric mirrors :lol:
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
no, it's not BS.. you';re a union sychophants, you should know better than to call it BS.oh, it's BS alright as you have documented for me
and here you are inferring management has the same negotiating position as unionswhat you are telling us is that management agreed to a contract in which its employees were limited in the functions they could fulfill
management agreed to that
yet you want to pretend labor is the problem
whoa whoa whoa.. i thought you just called it "bs"?..and now you're making anrgument for what you previously called BS?.. image my surprise.:roll:so, you wanted the janitor to do two jobs: custodial and re-fueling
i imagine you would expect an airline pilot to both fly the plane and hand out snacks to the passengers
I object to public sector unions... not private sector unions.and yet you object to unions
how odd to object to what is admittedly very beneficial for you
depends on how you define "best interest"...these maintenance items that management agreed under contract that drivers were not obligated to perform
and you are blaming the union for acting in the best interests of its employees?
foolish
i've told you what my position on union... you can adjust your comments accordingly now.that personal windfall, and yet you object to union rights. how odd
..you couldn't sound more clueless if you tried. .. "mirror adjuster" is not a classification of worker.:lol:so, management of the unionized company, recognizing it had a problem with aligning its mirrors, opted NOT to purchase electric mirrors but instead hire another classification of worker to perform that task manually
notice how in every instance the stupidity you have identified has been management's?!
Stop trying to fake it like you explained your accusation that I was guilty of taking right wing positions and pushing right wing politics then. You are obviously impotent to document or explain these false charges.
And continuing to insult me only shines and even greater spotlight on your own inability to offer this evidence you have been unable to present so far.
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.Thrilla
don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..
What is it exactly that I am failing to comprehend regarding your unfounded accusations against me ?
You have not been able to document this charge and still are unable to do so resorting only to insults and repetition of those same insults.
It is obvious you let your mouth get a bad case of diarrhea and now are unable to clean yourself up without losing face.
post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.
my experience was in the public/federal sector. there we had managers who refused to budge when we attempted to restrict hires to internal candidates. and they were wise to do so, because there could be external candidates who were better qualified. so, i have not seen the scenario you presented; however, since my union experience was limited to the public sector, i cannot offer a rebuttal to your own experienceThe manager does not have complete control over who is hired - union employees with the highest seniority get the better positions. If the removed worker is replaced, it's by the person next in line who has the same qualifications and highest seniority - who may just be worse then the person just removed, and the cycle starts all over again. That's the cat and mouse game that's been happening for decades now.
i have represented under-performing employees in many instances. and still won. because the damn manager failed to document the employee's shortcomings. any union rep would have prevailed. the employee won NOT because management did not have sound reason to discipline them but because they failed to make a case. that requires effort. and in too many instances, i have seen managers ignore their obligations to document their caseI'm not saying that all union employees are bad by any stretch but some do the bare minimum and some do less than that with the only REAL discipline being a note in their employee file and being moved to a new position, sometimes under the SAME manager. I've seen both healthy management - union locations and poisonous ones. Even in the healthy one's grievances are fairly common.
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
from Thrilla
don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..
My experience has only been in the private sector and not in many unions but one specific one - CWA and IBEW of NJ. It certainly depends on which union, what sector and what the contracts both local and national (in my case national) specified.my experience was in the public/federal sector. there we had managers who refused to budge when we attempted to restrict hires to internal candidates. and they were wise to do so, because there could be external candidates who were better qualified. so, i have not seen the scenario you presented; however, since my union experience was limited to the public sector, i cannot offer a rebuttal to your own experience
Granted, I have only had a manager be unprepared a few times and even then they were coached by upper managed on the grievance procedures as well as the appeal processes. Sometimes those nasty cases went to an agreed upon 3rd party arbitrator but for the most part, the documentation was provided well in advance to the union rep - sometimes the grievance was dropped most times it wasn't. However in all cases I can say that there was only 1 outright dismissal that I was involved in and that was because we had a quality control recording (union approved through contract) of a guy making a drug deal while talking on the phone to a supposed "customer". The person who replaced him was a definite improvement.i have represented under-performing employees in many instances. and still won. because the damn manager failed to document the employee's shortcomings. any union rep would have prevailed. the employee won NOT because management did not have sound reason to discipline them but because they failed to make a case. that requires effort. and in too many instances, i have seen managers ignore their obligations to document their case
in the best situation i encountered in my career, the senior manager and i had a healthy, respectful, communicative and open relationship. we solved problems. we negotiated agreements found nowhere else, such as the manner in which all employees - who received a satisfactory rating or better - received a substantial year-end bonus. those who received higher ratings got even more. those who were superlative received the most. and those performance goals were set at the beginning of the year and were both achievable and documentable. as a result of these incentives, the office performed massively better than all 66 others in the nation
the result? HQ forbade us from distributing bonus money that way again and instead imposed a procedure that gave the most money to the highest ranking. the manager was sent away to become the turn-around specialist for the other problem offices. HQ replaced him with a political hire from the coal industry who knew nothing about what we did. and the office soon returned to being an average performer
Brain stuck in rewind? Repeating the same refuted nonsense seems your only line of an extremely weak defense. You are now officially a dog chasing its own tail going round and round and round but getting nowhere. But hey, why change the only tactic that you know at this point?
What is it exactly that I am failing to comprehend regarding your unfounded accusations against me ?
You have not been able to document this charge and still are unable to do so resorting only to insults and repetition of those same insults.
It is obvious you let your mouth get a bad case of diarrhea and now are unable to clean yourself up without losing face.
post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.
So now you are attempting to apply to me the "comprehension" schtick ....when you yourself dismissed it as applied to you.
This is extremely telling.
if the unions did not help the employees, then why do many employers expend so much time and money trying to keep the unions out?
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
You seem to have reverted to broken English... perhaps it is not your first language?
you seem to have nothing of substance to say.... as usual.
Henrin is right, you're making no sense. Pay comes from revenue/profits. And management gets more control because management is taking more risk.
Not to mention you seem to think that management does no work whatsoever. Who do you think coordinates everything and makes sure it functions properly? That stuff doesn't just happen in a vacuum. No, it takes qualified and competent people who work just as hard, albeit not as physical, as everyone else.
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.
Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.
You're living in a naive paper theory fantasy land.Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.
Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.
Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.
"the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous." What are your job qualifications to judge ridiculousness? Have you, or will you ever, sign the front of a paycheck? As for competition, why should I keep you employed when I could find someone more qualified?
You're living in a naive paper theory fantasy land.
Can you name a single society in history where this has been done, and done successfully?
And yet, after so much history of man in the workplace, the concept you champion has failed over and over and over. Perhaps that suggests something?
See my response to radcen. I'm not sure you understand the concept of self-management and the fact that implementation of it around the globe has been successful or if you're just claiming that all forms of socialism are a failure because muh Cold War.
You're living in a naive paper theory fantasy land.
Can you name a single society in history where this has been done, and done successfully?
I'm not comparing two workers, rather two job positions.
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.
Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.
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?