I hear you there. Even when I've been in the hospital for a procedure, I get frantic calls. Bleh.
Whine like a baby, now with 500% more drama!
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Sure, just try to "work" in a trade in a unionized state if you don't want to join the union. Then the label really starts to make sense.
If you're lucky, you get to live. If you're unlucky, something like Upper Big Branch happens to you. Massey's mines were non-union, and Don Blankenship refused to allow union reps on company property.
I know you have an axe to grind against mining companies, but suggesting that people should be barred from working in their chosen field because they don't want to join the union is just wrong. Let the individual choose whether to associate - or not - with groups they agree or disagree with.
It's a slippery slope. That's the problem. I don't like the idea of people being forced to join unions. But at the same time, then you have employers who will only hire people who aren't in one, and can potentially run roughshod over people who are more desperate for work than safety. There are unions who abuse their power. There are employers who do the same. But that is true in everything, sadly. There needs to be a better balance.
GasBandit
Staff member
I agree with what you're saying, but I can't help but point out that's not what a slippery slope is
it's more of a "no-win situation" I think might be more descriptive.As for me, I think the answer lies in better whistleblower protection laws, and harsher criminal penalties for managers that goes up the chain. I've advocated this before for employing illegal aliens - any manager found to be practicing in violation of the law (be it employing illegals OR violating work safety regulations) gets jail time and a fine locked to a percentage of age and net worth - and so does his boss, and his boss's boss, all the way to the top.
So say (just to pick numbers out of the air), 20% of age and 20% of net worth, so, for example, if a 30 year old manager with a net worth of 30k gets busted for violating work safety regulations, he gets 6 years in prison and a $6,000 fine, but the 60 year old CEO worth $10 million gets 12 years and a 2 million dollar fine. Each "boss" between them scales accordingly.
It'll make the execs much greater sticklers about making sure they're in compliance with safety (and immigration) laws, and come down that much harder on the middle managers to make sure everything is in order.
How do you solve the perverse incentive? Low-level/young/low-worth managers could extort everyone above them in the chain of command.I agree with what you're saying, but I can't help but point out that's not what a slippery slope is
As for me, I think the answer lies in better whistleblower protection laws, and harsher criminal penalties for managers that goes up the chain. I've advocated this before for employing illegal aliens - any manager found to be practicing in violation of the law (be it employing illegals OR violating work safety regulations) gets jail time and a fine locked to a percentage of age and net worth - and so does his boss, and his boss's boss, all the way to the top.
So say (just to pick numbers out of the air), 20% of age and 20% of net worth, so, for example, if a 30 year old manager with a net worth of 30k gets busted for violating work safety regulations, he gets 6 years in prison and a $6,000 fine, but the 60 year old CEO worth $10 million gets 12 years and a 2 million dollar fine. Each "boss" between them scales accordingly.
It'll make the execs much greater sticklers about making sure they're in compliance with safety (and immigration) laws, and come down that much harder on the middle managers to make sure everything is in order.
Why do libertarian regulations always sound so draconian, anyway?
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, this particular idea isn't all that Libertarian. A strict libertarian interpretation would be "if you don't like it, work somewhere else," but I'm not 100% doctrinal on such matters. I mean, if that were possible for anyone to just pack up and move to another job somewhere else, there'd be nobody at all in WV except maybe DarkAuditHow do you solve the perverse incentive? Low-level/young/low-worth managers could extort everyone above them in the chain of command.
Why do libertarian regulations always sound so draconian, anyway?
As for extortion, that's already a crime.
I was under the impression that you thought making something a crime doesn't automatically fix the issue, it just adds another set of incentives (re: guns, particularly).
GasBandit
Staff member
That's an apples/oranges comparison. Extortion has always been illegal, guns have not. Guns are a physical tool usable for things other than crime, extortion is an action, not an item. There is no such thing as a "law abiding extortionist," but there are law abiding gun owners. There has never been a right - constitutional or otherwise - to extortion, nor has it ever actually been regarded positively by anyone. It's the same flawed argument that goes "If making guns illegal won't make criminals stop using guns, why do we bother making anything illegal?" It's because the criminal is already a criminal, and using a gun makes a criminal act easier while not really compounding the criminality all that much - the difference between stabbing your wife to death and shooting your wife to death is one where added criminality is not a factor when the act of killing your wife is already a capital crime, and thus no deterrent to a murderer.
Attempting extortion is illegal, and usually easily proven when the leverage is falsified. I don't think you'd see a lot of middle managers trying to take a poison (or rather, prison) pill in an attempt to extort their bosses. Not only is it unlikely to succeed and very likely to end in your arrest, but it also makes sure nobody will ever put you in a management position ever again because that's the sort of thing that would definitely follow you.
Or Act 10.
Too sore to sit up to play Diablo 
Where I work we are unionized, if you don't want to "join" you don't have to, but you still pay dues and get the benefits and pension. I think that my company would be a lot worse off without, as the contractors we have are paid per job and do quicker (often poorer quality) work.
My issue with unions is that they have to protect those that by all rights should be fired to the same extent to those that shouldn't. As a shop steward I hate protecting the stupid.
My issue with unions is that they have to protect those that by all rights should be fired to the same extent to those that shouldn't. As a shop steward I hate protecting the stupid.
GasBandit
Staff member
That sounds remarkably similar to "it's free after you pay for it."
Hence the quotes. We're a union shop, you just don't have to participate in the union stuff. The pension is nice though since I suck at saving.
I always thought that a shop/office was either union or not. I didn't realize that it was legal to have a mix.
That's what "Right to work" allows. Previously once a union got enough power over the company, they would force the company to fire anyone that didn't pay union dues, and they couldn't hire non-union people.
If you wanted to work there, you had to be union. Period.
The unions would go company to company, and eventually you couldn't be a pipe fitter unless you worked secretly on small jobs.
If the union then found a company hiring non union labor, they wouldn't allow their union members to work there, thus depriving the company of labor, except from those few willing to defy the unions.
In the good old days you could end up in an unfortunate accident if you chose to defy the union.
Right to work prohibits the contracts that allow unions and companies to force union dues and to only hire union people.
That said, unions still have significant power, and the status quo hasn't changed much in states like Michigan which only recently became right to work.
Even in Canada there can be a mixture, AFAIK. There's a very prolific poster in /r/talesfromtechsupport, one Bytewave, that has explained in the past how the telco he works at has a mixture of unionized employees and non-unionized contractors, and the myriad legal boundaries separating what work can be done by whom.
E.g. The day a contractor tried to unionize
E.g. The day a contractor tried to unionize
All of our full time people are unionised. There isn't an option for full time, permanent staff. There are several unions depending on your work and whether or not you have a professional designation. In my office, we have employees from three unions. You can be a passive member, or sign up and be a card carrying more involved member. Both pay the same dues. All of our casuals, contractors, part timers, students are not in the union although they follow the agreement that would cover them if they were full time for rates of pay, overtime etc
my company managed to keep unions out of its rolls by basically just treating us like human beings. its weird because we are a home improvement supplier. but nope none of us are union, and honestly the only thing that hasn't happened yet is sick days for full time permanent staff, which would be killer.
Dear Sir,
I previously rated your post "Brofist" to inform you of my comraderie on the subject. Subsequent to this I reviewed the linked material and gained a great deal of amusement from the resource thus provided.
As such your post rating has been upgraded from "Brofist" to "LOVE IT!!"
With respect,
stienman
It's all sort of fading away anyway: my generation hasn't been joining unions because of how mercenary we've become about work. Why join the union when you might only be here for a few months until you have better prospects? Unions are for people who want to work in a single career and/or location for years (like teachers, electricians, etc), not people who want to drop everything at a moment's notice to ether work on a personal project or switch jobs to a place that serves their prospects better. A lot of employers are actually complaining about it now: we refuse to sign long term contracts without substantial compensation and benefits, we leave at the drop of a hat if slighted, and we're willing to slow our work down to a bare minimum if we feel we are being treated unfairly.
I can't blame my fellows. We are the generation raised by people who tried to be loyal to a company and got nothing for it. We know better.
I can't blame my fellows. We are the generation raised by people who tried to be loyal to a company and got nothing for it. We know better.
Salutations,
I am glad that you enjoyed Bytewave's tales as much as I do. His stories have always amused me and, back when I worked IT support, comparing and contrasting his experiences to mine was very amusing.
While not on the exact same vein, you may enjoy /u/airz23's tales as well. His style is decidedly more literary, but his stories are nonetheless amusing. Do note that his readings are best enjoyed in chronological order--not piecemeal, so I recommend scrolling down the linked page to the very bottom.
Yours truly,
Denbrought
P.S.: This post was originally written in unicode-compliant Fraktur, but it seems that our forum does not support it.
I want to peek at an alternate timeline of this thread where I worded my post a little better.
Ok, this isn't really a whine, but following up on this...
One of the students found me on Facebook and friended me. She's now sending me messages that can be best summarized as "lol look how kooky and random I am, aren't I funny?" It's like... she's trying to talk to me and probably flirt with me, but with the adeptness and register of a schoolgirl.
It's simultaneously flattering, fascinating, and kinda weird.
They aren't my students any more, or rather they weren't ever my students, technically. I was asked to basically sub a three-hour class. They might ask me back to sub more classes in the future, if the need arises, but as of right now I'm not their instructor. That's why I figured there shouldn't be any harm in accepting their friend requests.
... right?