Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

They should just fire the freaking transit workers and hire new ones. (rant)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bushi_no_ki
    replied
    I am in favor of skilled workers being paid more, but I do have a problem with companies that continue to make a profit by employing people who remain eligible for State Entitlement Programs after their hire. It's one thing for a teenager or college student to be working 20 hrs a week for min. wage, but an adult with children to support needs forty hours a week, or more. Companies like WalMart, who have more than 20% of their employees who are eligible for Welfare, should be penalized with a 30% tax on their gross income. A few part time jobs lost (less than 32 hrs a week) so that the bulk of workers can actually pay their bills is a perfectly acceptable solution.

    I had no compassion for the People of NYC during that period, aside from the poorest workers who were truly fucked over. Alot of the people could have left home a little earlier and walked to work. If there was a budget surplus, there was no reason to not fork over a decent cost of living wage. It also shouldn't be illegal for city workers to strike, as that would keep the administration on its toes when it came to having a budget surplus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluto Blutarsky
    replied
    In all honesty, I haven't read the thread in it's entirety, I sort of lost track of it somewhere.

    But about the pay raises for higher ups, well the honest truth that people don't want to realize is that they get those because they are worth more. To the company at least. If the rank and file "assembly line" workers could do his job, then don't you think they would rather pay a manager or "higher up" minimum wage. It will not happen because no one would take the job.

    And I've heard the bullshit before that "oh, but they don't do anything". They only keep the business running and the workers working and deal with clients and hold much more responsibility and stress than it takes to screw on a barbie doll head on the assembly line (ok, I'm using that as an example, but you can apply it to anything).

    The bottom line is that who is more skilled, and harder to replace and has more effect on the well-bieng of a company?

    I'm not saying that a "golden parachute" contract where they pay severence for 30 years and continue to pay thier health care is fine, it is ridiculous too. But that makes slightly more sense than giving a simple cog that is easily replaceable benefits that are beyond what thier skill is.

    And FYI, the only group I applaud and respect during this whole escapade is the cab drivers. I actually have not used the mass transit system since before the strike.
    Last edited by Bluto Blutarsky; 1/11/2006 5:15pm, .

    Leave a comment:


  • Hannibal
    replied
    Originally posted by PEtrainer
    But the society is a pyarmid; there will be working poor. If Walmart gave its employees large raises, paid all their healthcare, and gave huge 401k contributions, how could they do it? raise prices.... The people who work there are some of their largest shoppers, the high prices would just impact thier income.

    Additionally, is the wag the only reason these people live in poverty (and I thnk I'm being generous here because what are we defining as poor)...

    A portion of these people had children before they could become responsible for them. Some have bad expensive habits like smoking or drinking. Some may have a new vehicle or credit card debt they could have avoided.

    Much of this depends on the economic choices that people make.

    This bullshit again ?

    Yeah, yeah. If a retail chain gives pay rises to all it's employees, then it will have to raise the prices of the products it sells to compensate. In the end, the public pays for it. Yeah, yeah I've heard that one before.

    It's funny. WHen the worker gets a pay rise, everyone complains. WHen the guy who makes $10 and hour and then all of a sudden gets $12- an hour, he should be grateful. Like someone has done him a huge favour. But when a company executive gets a pay-rise with bonus' that amounts to millions - you don't here any complaints. No one says shit. And when big business have to pay executives millions just to get rid of them and have them replaced with someone else - no complaints.

    Leave a comment:


  • garbanzo
    replied
    It's interesting: NY1 is having a call in show.

    The sentiment among a lot of Transit Workers is that their union screwed the pooch.

    They are back on the job with no concessions gained and out several days pay.

    You win some, you lose some, I suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluto Blutarsky
    replied
    "Work should have value. A bricklayer or trashman or bus driver works - look me in the eye and tell me that an entry level computer programmer "deserves" more money for sitting around typing all day then an entry level stonemason or construction framer or plumber. The reality is these people are told they should make very little for unskilled jobs and they accept it - THAT is the failing of their lack of education; that is where their lack of education lets them down. "

    I disagree in part because it is not so much thier lack of education as how society as a collective values these things. Look at actors and athletes. Probably the most unessesary jobs in society for it to function, yet the highest paid because it is entertainment and it has been built (a 180 degree turn since the days of shakespeare when they were pariahs) that way by demand from society as a whole. There is also the difference between skilled and unskilled labor. Bieng a bricklayer or trashman or bus driver might not be "easy" work to do. But because almost anyone can learn to do it, they will not be in such high demand as opposed to the computer programmer who the average guy on the street (me included) doesn't know the first thing about computer programming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluto Blutarsky
    replied
    This is moot now anyway since the scum went back to work.

    They want more "dignity"? how much respect are they going to get now?

    I hope they still enforce the penalties against the union. They probably shouldn't push for penalties against the workers though, but I'm kind of iffy on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Kagan
    replied
    Originally posted by garbanzo
    Of course the free market answer is that there should be no socialistic support paid for by either taxpayers or employers.
    The free market dictates that those who acquire the wealth will lobby anyone and everyone to protect the competitive advantage they've carved out in the laws regardless of who else it might hurt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Kagan
    replied
    Originally posted by PEtrainer
    A portion of these people had children before they could become responsible for them. Some have bad expensive habits like smoking or drinking. Some may have a new vehicle or credit card debt they could have avoided.

    Are these the same people specifically targeted by the credit companies with easy money to buy that car they've been taught will raise their self-esteem by the bombardment of advertisments that they have no idea how to filter because the education of finances is not only lacking, but specifically designed to be detrimental to their interests?

    And what about all the working poor who aren't categorized they way you say? Is it acceptable if they get paid a living wage? Or are you saying the vast majority of the working poor actually do fall into that nice pigeon-hole you've described?

    Leave a comment:


  • garbanzo
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnnyCache
    If a business wants to pay people so little to work that they still have to be sociallistically supported, I don't think they can lay claim to being an employer - and I think some of the burden for that socialistic support should go to that 'employer' instead of taxpayers who are being made to pay to keep costs low on behalf of an employer they don't all patronize.
    Of course the free market answer is that there should be no socialistic support paid for by either taxpayers or employers.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyCache
    replied
    Originally posted by PEtrainer
    But the society is a pyarmid; there will be working poor. If Walmart gave its employees large raises, paid all their healthcare, and gave huge 401k contributions, how could they do it? raise prices.... The people who work there are some of their largest shoppers, the high prices would just impact thier income.

    Additionally, is the wag the only reason these people live in poverty (and I thnk I'm being generous here because what are we defining as poor)...

    A portion of these people had children before they could become responsible for them. Some have bad expensive habits like smoking or drinking. Some may have a new vehicle or credit card debt they could have avoided.

    Much of this depends on the economic choices that people make.
    I do agree that societies naturally stratify. I don't think a 'job' should be considered a job when people doing it are still on governemnt assistance. THere is a difference between 'someone must be at the bottom' and 'someone must be below the literal poverty line'

    If a business wants to pay people so little to work that they still have to be sociallistically supported, I don't think they can lay claim to being an employer - and I think some of the burden for that socialistic support should go to that 'employer' instead of taxpayers who are being made to pay to keep costs low on behalf of an employer they don't all patronize.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyCache
    replied
    1) If I was a TWA member, and they went on strike, I would support the strike publicly - I feel you give your word to do that when you join the union.

    I don't feel this is a striking situation, personally, it's just a chain of command thing. I would try to get my co-workers and union leaders to come to that realization from within. I would not have support the decision to strike in this instance BEFORE it was made.

    2) You have to sometimes. It's hard to make a blanket statment like that - there are circumstances where if I disagreed with the union strongly enough I might quit my job. I wouldn't scab, unless it was for some obsence amount of money or something - scabbing is the equivilent of walking up to a guy in a night club while he's hitting on a girl, grabbing him by the cheeks and kissing him full on the mouth until she walks away - it's really gay, you're fucking up something someone else is trying to do, and it's gonna get your ass kicked.

    3) a.

    Leave a comment:


  • PEtrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Kagan
    A little collective bargaining can go a long way towards making a company consider the benefit of the worker.

    I'm not faulting Wal-Mart, specfically. I'm using it as an example.


    As far as fairness, that's were we part ways. Regardless of skill level involved in the labor of their job, I don't consider it fair for a worker to do their job 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year and still live in poverty while living in the richest nation in the world.
    But the society is a pyarmid; there will be working poor. If Walmart gave its employees large raises, paid all their healthcare, and gave huge 401k contributions, how could they do it? raise prices.... The people who work there are some of their largest shoppers, the high prices would just impact thier income.

    Additionally, is the wag the only reason these people live in poverty (and I thnk I'm being generous here because what are we defining as poor)...

    A portion of these people had children before they could become responsible for them. Some have bad expensive habits like smoking or drinking. Some may have a new vehicle or credit card debt they could have avoided.

    Much of this depends on the economic choices that people make.

    Leave a comment:


  • garbanzo
    replied
    Three general questions:

    1) If you were a TWU member you would :
    a) support the strike
    b) oppose the strike

    2) Would you like to belong to a powerful union that fights for your interests even if it means breaking the law and suffering the consequences?

    3) In a capitalistic society, workers would be expected to :
    a) try to organize to obtain the most benefits (pay, pension, conditions, etc.)
    b) trust their employers to look after their interests

    4) The TWU are:
    a) a bunch of pinko commie fags
    b) good little captialists acting out of self interest
    c) neither
    Last edited by garbanzo; 12/22/2005 2:38pm, .

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyCache
    replied
    It is trickle-down economics, just a version of that theory that places more emphasis on recognizing the contributions of others.

    Trickle-down is the theory that the spending of wealthy people enrichs poor people. I feel the work of poorer people enables the wealth in the first place, so there's no job you should look down your nose at.

    Free market theory assumes that all parties invovled are sensibly opportunistic - free market theory only holds true in an environment where all those participating are dealing with each other on an economic level of pure supply and demand. It doesn't work in a pure form because certain people are bilkable. IF I can't sell my product because there is no demand for it, that's free market. If there's huge demand for my product, but I can't sell it to those parties for that price because I've been convinced to sell it to an insertive middle party for a fraction of its true value at market, the free market economy has been corrupted somewhat.

    This holds true in the blue-collar market particularly, since many of the people that hold semi-skilled or vocational positions haven't been trained to bargin effectively for the worth of their work - something intrensic to free market participation - while their bosses have. Much of the middle class in this country was built when labor solidarity reversed that condition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Kagan
    replied
    Originally posted by PEtrainer
    So what companies out there exist for the benefits of the employee? None. These people are more than fair to (again) non- skilled workers.

    A little collective bargaining can go a long way towards making a company consider the benefit of the worker.

    I'm not faulting Wal-Mart, specfically. I'm using it as an example.


    As far as fairness, that's were we part ways. Regardless of skill level involved in the labor of their job, I don't consider it fair for a worker to do their job 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year and still live in poverty while living in the richest nation in the world.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X