[Bwanajim]

Sounds like pretty big raises for the union workers who have absolutely zero risk in the corporation! I was a small business owner. Did I make a hell of a lot more money than my employees? Yes. But I’m the one that took the risk! I had to get the supplies, I paid for the insurance, worried with a hurricane came or when the economy tanked. I handled the payroll and All the stress and headaches that goes with owning a business. Have you ever owned a business? I had two employees with me over 25 years and several with me over 10 so I must’ve treated them pretty damn good. It’s called supply and demand. If they want to work there go work somewhere else. Unions should NOT be able to hold companies hostage

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by blueash

And during that time that you worked for the company and were very well paid for less than fully productive effort, did the company make money? Did the stockholders see some gains, and most importantly, were the workers able to have a single parent make enough to buy a house and send their kid to college and the worker got a pension?

Originally Posted by Pugchief

So you're saying that it's okay that the employees were intentionally less productive as long as the company made money and the stockholders gained? Jeez, you have clearly never owned a business. If any of my employees intentionally slacked off, they'd be gone.

Originally Posted by blueash

And you are certain I never owned a business. And like so many certainties posted here, yours is wrong. I very much was a principle owner of a very successful business with well paid employees who had health insurance, disability insurance, 401 K with a match, 4 weeks vacation after 10 years, paid time off for illness or any personal needs which increased with increased years. And if I'd paid them less and fewer benefits which was common in my town and my industry I'd have made more myself.
But I had so many long term employees who appreciated their benefits and that I was not a slave driver.

So you're wrong.

Good for you. Glad you took care of your employees. So did I. But my assertion, that intentional slackers would be fired, stands. Did you condone that? I doubt it.

So perhaps you'd like to clarify the first quote above?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Bwanajim

Sounds like pretty big raises for the union workers who have absolutely zero risk in the corporation! I was a small business owner. Did I make a hell of a lot more money than my employees? Yes. But I’m the one that took the risk! I had to get the supplies, I paid for the insurance, worried with a hurricane came or when the economy tanked. I handled the payroll and All the stress and headaches that goes with owning a business. Have you ever owned a business? I had two employees with me over 25 years and several with me over 10 so I must’ve treated them pretty damn good. It’s called supply and demand. If they want to work there go work somewhere else. Unions should NOT be able to hold companies hostage

The union did not deliver much to the workers.................the offer from the company prior to the strike was 50% increase. The new agreement is 62% increase.

[Blueblaze]

I have no problem with unions. I just have a problem with unions using their monopoly power to force people to join a union, and then driving wages to ludicrous levels. I'm sorry -- learning how to operate the joy stick on a crane does not qualify you for a wage that I went into debt earning three degrees to get. And if you force an employer to give it to you, you're just asking for that employer to move your job to China or invest in automation to replace you.

But the weird thing I mostly notice about unions is their voting preferences and the fact that unions don't exist in communist countries.