Just in time for the writer's guild strike about compensation for online content...
Every Daily Show since Stewart started hosting
Printable View
Just in time for the writer's guild strike about compensation for online content...
Every Daily Show since Stewart started hosting
Goodbye productivity.
productivity is a myth
screw the writers guild, greedy *****es. i dont support people that dont care about their fans enough to possibly kill new shows, and current shows untill 2009 if the strike lasts longer then 3 months. They can goto hell.
Guild, Union, Mafia, Monopoly
Fewer and fewer differences these days.
There is enough bad writing in television that I personally don't mind if the good ones get some more money. There are a lot of factors that contribute to whether a show is good or bad, but poor writing will put it in the crapper just about every time.
Then when they've sorted out the writers they can work on getting better directors. Pretty much every show made specifically for the sci-fi channel for instance, demonstrates the need for both very eloquently in my opinion.
The auto unions think auto workers should get more money too. Has it helped the quality of the American automobile?
I grew up in a union, the coal miner's union, we spent more time out of work due to strikes than we did working. Unions need to go away, all they do is rob the hard working people of their dues...
Maybe some of those "other" writers will now get a chance to show what they've got.
the problem with this strike, anyone that wants to be part of the WGA and be eligible for the awards that make writers get the big paydays wont write, because the WGA has threatened to deny entrance to anyone that crosses the picket line.
im mad pissed because josh whedon was just about to start a new show. 24 isnt going to be on now. heros gets half a season, scrubs might not even get a season finale now.
The Post Office (the UK national one) just went on strike a few weeks ago.
Funny that, how it always seems to be the businesses that need to create a better impression of themselves due to years of poor management/service/public relations that decide that striking will be an effective way of getting people back on board.
And another - the UK has a series of privatized train services, for example I can use any of three to get to work, Southern, Southwest and Silverlink.
Silverlink is by far the worst, the dirtiest trains, trains always late, yet they're the ones that always go on strike.
If they do see the damage striking causes to the public's perception of themselves then they don't care.
As such, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that they won't be holding that franchise for much longer.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for people getting paid well, but striking for it? An archaic idea whose time has come and gone.
I couldn't agree more.
It's a monopoly on labor. Just like a company can have a monopoly on some other resource like oil or coal. And the effect on the economy and people at large is the same.
Child labor laws, unsafe work conditions, etc. are legit reasons to picket. Raising pay via threat is just strong-arming.
I've been quite happy with my union made dodge dakota.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The Auto workers union is a very interesting story if you ever choose to look into it.
It was basically the workers trying to wrestle some power away from the manufactures. Once the workers go some power then generational struggles began inside the union.
The union doesn't make the business decisions for the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The trouble with the auto makers has nothing to do with unions or workers' wages.
That is nothing more than a dishonest corporate talking point to try and cut worker wages and benefits.
The responsibility for their problems rest solely with poor management and investment decisions.
You are both certainly entitled to your opinions, but my experience is completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVPohovich
For the first few years in my job I chose not to join the union or pay dues even tho I still enjoyed the wages and benefits that the union contract provided.
After witnessing my first new contract negotiations I completely changed my tune.
Once I saw the union successfully fight off the company's attempt to terminate all my benefits, the benefits of all previous retirees, and cut my wages by $25k/yr, I immediately joined and have been extremely grateful to pay my $30/mo union dues.
If companies treated their employees fairly there would be no need for unions at all.
Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in.
I still like American trucks as well. But, the general consensus, demonstrated substantially by a consistent pattern of lay-offs, is that we are losing that industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
The most interesting point about it to me is that the beginning of the big players profit losses coincide exactly with the same point in time that our cost of labor shot way above that of Japanese auto-makers. It's not difficult to do the math from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
If only that were true, many auto-union workers would still have their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
It has everything to do with the cost of labor. That cost has been artificially inflated by union strong arming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
That's grand. CEO's get paid too much. All 13,000 of us need to get paid more. And it's the CEO's fault that profits aren't coming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The French really have invaded. :D
Your story describes how you benefitted financially from being in a union. It says nothing toward whether or not that is a good thing for the company, consumer, industry or economy. If that's the case, why don't we just allow all people in all positions of every company to just decide for themselves what they should be paid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Sounds a lot like "we're going to burn your building down if you don't pay me what I want."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Sorry FlashLacky, can't agree with your angle at all. Here's the deal,
There are 3 ways to limp, in the mind, in the foot or in the pocket, now as a lucky individual, without a limp, in a civilised society it is our responsibility to help anyone who has a limp, why? first its the decent standpoint, and secondly, sould you develope a limp one day, hopefully someone will come to your aid. However, you have to have an environment where this is possible, and that's where the union has its place, when it acts for the mutual benefit of its members. In other threads you have talked about the need to be aware of the adgenda of big business, well the single guy aint going to able to do anything about it on his own, but together they stand at least a chance of getting heard.
A brief history of the Union.
http://www.uwstout.edu/cas/socsci/tyson/laborhis.htm
A brief addendum to that too brief history:
Jimmy Hoffa
Stoke Laurie, I respect your disagreement. But, in my view, I think your analogy expresses a good argument for charity, not unions.
First, your idea presupposes the idea of giving. Unions are taking via extortion. A more apt comparison would be for your guy with a limp to commit armed robbery at a 7-11.
Second, remember that what unions take for themselves has to come from someone else. Despite popular belief, that doesn't come out of the pockets of only the CEO's, the top 1% or balding villians with assistants named Smithers. The bulk of their payment comes out of the pockets of everyday citizens via stock holdings. People whose retirement income depends on shares in corporations. The cut into profit margins is further reflected in lower tax revenues which all citizens benefit from. When we lose a large industry to foreign competition because we can't compete with their cost of labor, we lose jobs. It is perhaps most ironic of all that union members themselves have suffered substantially for unions. Really, every mass lay-off that I can remember being reported in the news was involved with an industry known for having a strong union.
Clearly, if a union has helped you personally, you're not going to say that unions suck. At least give us that much credit.
But to a consumer using a union-backed, public-facing buisness on a daily basis, unions use consumers as leverage - which to the consumer is about as unattrative a tactic as is possible.
I disagree.
There are two parts of a union agreement. Labor and management.
Management is just as responsible for non delivery. They will cut off thier nose to spite there face. Management (as we've seen in the recent slew of recall items) Does not care about the consumer. They care about moving product with the highest profit margins possible, damn all who get in the way.
Corporate management is only held accountable for thier actions when a threat to thier livelyhood is at stake. The reasons why we have labor, consumer and securities laws is because corporations have no ethical boundries without them.
Big labor has proven over the years to be just as vulnerable (if not more) to corruption and illegal behavior. Further, the changes they have demanded and achieved have proven to be just as damaging (if not more) to the industries they are involved in. Yet, the body of law applied to them to create "ethical boundaries" is miniscule compared to the body of law applied to corporations for virtually the same actions.
Ever hear of the Rico act?
Yes! Do you know of any cases where RICO was applied to unions? But, I'm right with you there. What they do pretty much is right in line with what the people who RICO has been applied to have done. :D
Dude Hoffa was convicted in 1964
Is that the most relevant case you can bring up?
He never got back into the union, He was whacked.
Here is a little anti trust story From the 60's as well
http://www.moldea.com/ReaganGJ.html
And your right maybe SAG as well as MCA should have had the book thrown at them as well as the President of SAG at the time.
I don't think you get the point Frets. Hoffa was an example of the type of corruption your "brief history of labor" link left out. The fact remains, regardless of that, that unions can engage in extortion without penalty and corporations cannot. Both activities are equally harmful to our economy and to the lives of every day americans. It's not difficult to understand how it works. It's not unlike a pyramid scheme. People in the union just say, "It helped me make more cash and I don't mind being on slow-down anyway."
Your SAG/Reagan thing seems pretty obtuse to me. So, there were questions asked about SAG during a time when Reagan was president. That has a bearing on whether or not unions should have "ethical boundaries" because....?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547476.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
http://www.allbusiness.com/transport...4219845-1.html
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index...romItemId/2332
It would seem not to be the case.
Why? Because you found three links? One of them was a union imposed fine (not federal or state) and another was Australian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
Maybe I should have said "in most cases" instead of implying all cases of extortion. But, it took an entire city's transportation services being shut down for a fine to be brought against them. There are countless examples of more subtle (but still damaging) union actions that go unpunished.
"You give us what we want or we take the entire company down with us!"
Does that sound like "bargaining" to you? Maybe if "we will make them an offer they can't refuse" is also a valid form of "bargaining."
I only quoted 3 because I spent a minute on google, and they were the first 3.
Maybe its because I have witnessed what happens when matriarchal businesses close down due to outsourcing, and how that effects the local economy and the workforce, not just in their pockets but in their feelings of no worth, that I tend to champion the working guy. I understand progress and businesses need to generate maximum wealth for the shareholders, but one massive asset which doesn't appear on the balance sheet is a loyal workforce, moreoften they are considered a liability.
I don't think that is true at all. A happy, loyal workforce tends also to be a productive one. Furthermore, since corporations are not allowed legally to hold monopolies, they must compete with other companies to keep the best labor.
I understand your sentiments for the working guy. But, this isn't a working guy vs non-working guy issue. The shareholders are the working guy too. The citizens paying the cost of union manipulations are also the working guy.
PS: The results of union efforts are often what create the situations that make outsourcing appealing to businesses.
That was true in the day when everything from your razor to your staff wasn't considered throw-away. These days every one wants the job doing at the best price, which we all know in the real world rarely means the best quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
If what you are saying it affects us all, then you have answered your own arguement, in that all sides need to be considered, union and employer.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Think about that. You're basically saying that people should be paid (by force) to make something for which there isn't as much of a demand as for something else. This is ultimately where union arguments end up in my experience. It's wagon-makers wanting to get paid the same rate as auto-makers. If what the world wants most are inexpensive items (and there is good reason for people to want that if they are the poor, working guy), isn't it in the interest of the world for the companies to deliver those items as inexpensively as they can?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
I'm saying that what unions do has hurt the working guy more than helped them. So, yes, in consideration of the working guy, I do not support unions. By and large, they're a scourge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
PS: More expensive labor costs don't lead to better quality products anyway. More often, they lead to lower budgets for quality materials and extra-production research and development that might improve what the high cost laborers make.
NO its the fact that overseas workers will work in conditions unacceptable in this country, without many of the rights afforded us in law, uk and European, all of which obvoiusly come at a cost to the employer. I will remind you that many of these benefits including decent policy over sickness, holidays, berevement, childbirth, maternity, accident proceedures and adequate training. Plus hours of work that give people a chance to spend time with their families, were all never given freely or willingly, they all had to be fought for. So you see it is at the very core of democracy that a man shall have his voice, regardless of his point of view or standing in society. Unions have always been seen as the protective mechanism whereby those whos skills did not include elequent delivery could have a credible voice. Do union leaders ever become corupt with their power? of course, just like any other power, however please remember that unions have a democratic framework, and leaders can be removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
There have been some cases where people have been exploited here and in other countries and that is wrong. However, even if you were to buy into the ludicrous notion that the only reason labor costs less elsewhere is because the laborers are always working in sub-standard conditions, there are still the substantial costs of developing facilities elsewhere and paying for additional shipping and tariffs. The costs versus productivity have to be pretty bad at home before a company will go through such great lengths to open shop somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
I don't think it's necessary to go into platitudes over Democracy. If all the unions were doing were hiring eloquent people to voice peoples position, I wouldn't have a problem. However, that isn't near the case. Extortion and market manipulation are about as undemocratic as it gets. With regard to health, safety, etc. I don't have a problem with unions. However, what is going on these days is 99% exploitation in the reverse direction and 1% democracy.
Oh really, the other week we were discussing how China was excelling at taking on the Worlds production.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Good because thats what goes on every day in courts around the World, we hire people to do our talking for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Thats like saying Im glad we won the war, but I dont like soldiers. Im sure you are happy to enjoy the benefits of labour laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying? I think it should be expected that any country converting to more capitalist mechanisms with a population and history like China is going to provide a booming labor force. Nothing wrong with that, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
If the soldiers took advantage of their situation and proceeded to loot citizens homes after the war, I would not like them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke Laurie
I own and operate a company. So, I don't enjoy any benefits of labor laws.
Ah now if you had stated your standpoint earlier, I would have been more understanding, however, I employ a large number of people, and I follow a model used by a good friend of mine, John Cauldwell, founder of Phones4U, which he recently sold for an obscene amount of money. His model was simple, always recruit at your level and above, and look for leaders who will be self motivated. Of course there are individuals who will take advantage of benefits, but I understand that without my staff I have nothing, so their welfare is of my prime concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Yeah. I think that model has proven itself successful in many industries. Though, I'm sure some companies live up to it more than others and the larger the company, the more difficult it is to implement such principles company-wide.
It's just not good business to neglect employees. Which is why I don't believe we need unions to force companies to give raises, etc. If they give them, they keep their employees. If they don't, they risk losing them. Nobody knows whether or not they can afford that risk better than those that are responsible for the success of the company.
The challenge that I face is not that they have rights, its that in this crazy pc world, i have to be very careful how I handle inter-employee issues.
I remember someone saying to me that 1000's were starting a new job on Monday, waiting to see if the job was any good, he told me that it was up to me to show that I was good enough for the job, I doubt I would feel comfortable saying such a thing today.