What are we coming to or I don't believe it!

Companies bring in consultants when they do focus groups to try and change an item in a bargained contract just prior to negotiations on a new contract. I had to sit through a focus group presentation on how the company wanted to change our drug and dental plan, yes those items are not covered under our "free" national health care. At the conclusion there was a show of hands to find out who would or would not go for it. I was asked why I wouldn't and replied that if the company wanted it then it can't be good for me and my family. There was no reply only a stunned look from the presenter that ger spiel failed to impress.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

Companies bring in consultants when they do focus groups to try and change an item in a bargained contract just prior to negotiations on a new contract. I had to sit through a focus group presentation on how the company wanted to change our drug and dental plan, yes those items are not covered under our "free" national health care. At the conclusion there was a show of hands to find out who would or would not go for it. I was asked why I wouldn't and replied that if the company wanted it then it can't be good for me and my family. There was no reply only a stunned look from the presenter that ger spiel failed to impress.

Bob

---

This seems to be a common opinion, an us-versus-them mentality on business. Let me ask you a question...what conditions could be present in which a company employed you and a change for which you were to vote on would be considered, in your mind, mutually beneficial?
Because it seems your opinion is that it is ALWAYS true that good for co. = bad for you. This leaves no room for compromise or mutual benefit. In my mind, this would be darn good reason to fire you.

PS -- Bob, I do not mean to antagonize. I am merely pointing out that your stated reason for declining leaves that the only possible conclusion is that the benefit of the company and benefit of you are mutually exclusive. The conclusion, from an employer's standpoint, is that you are therefore bad for the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If you're trying to say there isn't much difference between republican coffers and democratic well that's a joke. You can cite all the money contributed through verifiable sources you want but it's the unverifiable ones where the republicans get so much of their money. Yes, everything positive to the working man is a job killer to the right. Why don't we just abolish the minimum wage and cut everyone's salary by 50% (except of course the fat cats) and we'll really be competitive again. Maybe outfits will start to move back to the U.S when they can pay their workers 50 cents an hour with no benefits whatsoever.

Considering how few workers are covered by Unions these days and how weak most unions are you talk like they are an unending source of finances simply bottomless like the right counterparts really are.

You talk about violence in Union organizing. Much of that has occurred through the encroachment of organized crime. However history is replete with violence orchestrated by factory owners on folks wanting to organize. How many have been killed and beaten senseless by strike breakers and private police forces brought in to break efforts to unionize? I believe it was Walmart who when confronted with union organizing in Canada threatened to close the store.

The bottom line is union shops have better wages and benefits to their employees than non union which is why outfits fight to keep unions out. I mean if unions were so bad I would think corporations would welcome them in so the employees would see what useless thieves they are. Unions can be voted out. it has been done before.

---

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up "fat cat" contributions. I'm just telling you that the top contributions by businesses were hardly a runaway by the right. And as for unverifiable sources of contributions, that's fodder for an entire other thread. The left has a wonderful money laundering system that many are probably not aware of. But again, fodder for another thread.

Organized crime? Was this organized crime?

SEIU thugs attack - YouTube

or this?

Brutality & Violence from Union Protestors, AFP Activists Trampled On - YouTube

And what does it say about unions that they are infiltrated by organized crime anyway? It might be a statement about their charge and tactics. I haven't seen any vids of Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet leading a violent protest against unions. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. And yes, union shops do have better wages and benefits...at the expense of others. Just because THEY have better benefits does not make it a good thing. Its a good thing for them, but not necessarily a good thing overall. Hell, I'd like to have some of those benefits as well. I'd love a pension.

Simply put, if business could "exploit" workers by imposing whatever wage they wanted on them, we would have expected that labor intensive industry to be much more profitable than capital intensive industry. But there is no evidence of that being true. And in the years leading up to organized unions, why were skilled workers paid more than non skilled workers? Why not pay them the same miserable cents for their day's wage since it was all the same? Labor is a commodity like anything else. Its competitive bargaining power rests in it ability to sell itself elsewhere. Union demands ensure that it can not be sold elsewhere and thus they must ensure that they have a monopoly on the commodity in order to sell it at all. Its what we vilified business for a century ago. But anyone who recognizes it is assumed to be morally corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthLord

This seems to be a common opinion, an us-versus-them mentality on business. Let me ask you a question...what conditions could be present in which a company employed you and a change for which you were to vote on would be considered, in your mind, mutually beneficial?
Because it seems your opinion is that it is ALWAYS true that good for co. = bad for you. This leaves no room for compromise or mutual benefit. In my mind, this would be darn good reason to fire you.

---

Yea, nothing like the threat of getting fired for voicing your own opinion when asked. Before answering, I mulled the proposed changes over and came to the conclusion that it would not be of benefit to me and my family. There was no quid pro quo benefit anywhere. No, it is not ALWAYS true that anything a company proposes is automatically bad for the employee. It is, in my 34 years of working for a single employer, true enough of the time to warrant being automatically suspicious and critically analyzing any proposed change.

Yes, in general it is very much an us vs them mentality and will always be so when negotiations are carried out based on the adversarial system as they are at present. That type of system automatically implies a winner and a loser and nobody likes to lose. To negotiate otherwise would require mutual trust and mutual self respect and the track record on both sides shows a long history that is not conducive to making that happen.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobH

Yea, nothing like the threat of getting fired for voicing your own opinion when asked. Before answering, I mulled the proposed changes over and came to the conclusion that it would not be of benefit to me and my family. There was no quid pro quo benefit anywhere. No, it is not ALWAYS true that anything a company proposes is automatically bad for the employee. It is, in my 34 years of working for a single employer, true enough of the time to warrant being automatically suspicious and critically analyzing any proposed change.

Yes, in general it is very much an us vs them mentality and will always be so when negotiations are carried out based on the adversarial system as they are at present. That type of system automatically implies a winner and a loser and nobody likes to lose. To negotiate otherwise would require mutual trust and mutual self respect and the track record on both sides shows a long history that is not conducive to making that happen.

Bob

---

I see. That is much more informative, Bob. And honestly, you sound like someone who could be a real asset to a company. Yes, it is true that adversarial approaches and "us versus them" mentalities foster distrust and make compromise -- let alone mutual benefit -- impossible.
What would you change about that system to make it better?
If you were an employer, what would you do to make the approach fair and mutually beneficial? What would you do to foster trust and cooperation?

I have no answers because people are people and there are enough dumb asses on both sides of the fence who want it all and give nothing in return. I'll leave that to the younger generation to figure who have more than a high school dropout's education. So glad I am retired with the only worry being, besides the big dirt nap, whether my former employer will spike my pension into the toilet, a real possibility BTW.

Bob