Jack Weber Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 So I can fire you for going on strike then? Or for organizing a union in the first place? In the case of the 2nd point,I suppose you could... On the first,not if the employee's are in a LEGAL strike position... Sould your business be taken from you if you lock said employee's out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) In the case of the 2nd point,I suppose you could... On the first,not if the employee's are in a LEGAL strike position... That's exactly my point, why is that legal? If your contract is up, and you don't like my offer, I should be free to give it to anyone else who does find it acceptable. Sould your business be taken from you if you lock said employee's out? Why should it, it's my company. I can open or close the doors whenever I see fit. Edited January 24, 2012 by Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 That's exactly my point, why is that legal? If your contract is up, and you don't like my offer, I should be free to give it to anyone else who does find it acceptable. Labour is allowed to form combines in the same way that business sometimes does. Why ? It works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 That's exactly my point, why is that legal? If your contract is up, and you don't like my offer, I should be free to give it to anyone else who does find it acceptable. Why should it, it's my company. I can open or close the doors whenever I see fit. It's legal because we have labour laws in this country that are'nt designed to assist the whims of employers solely... They are called "negotiations' for a reason.... A Lock Out is not the same as someone going out of business... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Labour is allowed to form combines in the same way that business sometimes does. Why ? It works. In business, if your contract is up, and you don't like the terms of the new offer, you don't have the right to hold the other business hostage. They can just move on without you if they see fit. Why? It works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 In business, if your contract is up, and you don't like the terms of the new offer, you don't have the right to hold the other business hostage. They can just move on without you if they see fit. Why? It works. Because,by law,a company and a bargaining unit must negotiate in good faith... And we have laws which deal those who don't... A Lock Out is an attempt at holding one of these groups hostage...You do realize it takes at least two groups to negotiate a labour contract,right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Because,by law,a company and a bargaining unit must negotiate in good faith... And we have laws which deal those who don't... I'm aware of those laws, and I find them deeply offensive. Threatening to walk off the job and expecting not to be fired for it is not good faith. Holding taxpayers hostage is not good faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Why? It works. Combines work too. Who do you get cable from if you don't like Bell or Rogers ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Combines work too. Who do you get cable from if you don't like Bell or Rogers ? I get my cable from Shaw and/or MTS. No contracts with either too. I'm free to move on to another provider if I don't like their terms. Plenty of other non-cable viewing options these days too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I get my cable from Shaw and/or MTS. Should I have to move to get more cable choices ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Should I have to move to get more cable choices ? There are other choices. You could even opt not to have cable, they can't force you to pay for something you don't want. Shouldn't business owners be afforded the same right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 There are other choices. You could even opt not to have cable, they can't force you to pay for something you don't want. Shouldn't business owners be afforded the same right? I can't opt not to work. Anyway, your position on combines is clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I can't opt not to work. Sure you can, lots of people do. Besides that, you can just opt to get a different job, or to go into business for yourself. Anyway, your position on combines is clear. Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sure. You going to front him the money to start his own business? How about if there are no jobs in his area that will allow him to pay his mortgage and loans that he got while doing this job? You don't quite seem to understand the ramification of business decisions on people and communities. They get to make these decisions with impunity. Flint, Michigan is the perfect example of the devastation that can be caused by CEOs packing up and moving their business off shore where they can pay workers $3 per day. Who picks up the cost of the social devastation left in their wake? The taxpayers. Which is ironic too, since the government tries to entice businesses to stay with tax-breaks and other... what's that word you conservatives like to use... entitlements. So we've got ourselves into a situation these days where people instead of being paid to work are paying the corporations for the "privilege" of having a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 That's ok though. It's no big deal. Pretty soon the tax base will be so eroded that we won't be able to afford the social safety net, conservative governments will burn the programs to the ground, and people will have nothing left to lose. Companies will continue to lose money because fewer people will be able to buy their products. That's when the $#!+ will really hit the fan and instead of everyone being disillusioned into expecting the government to "regulate" the tumultuous markets, they'll begin questioning the legitimacy of the entire economic order. All because the corporate parasites are going to bleed their hosts dry because they're too stupid to do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sure. You going to front him the money to start his own business? How about if there are no jobs in his area that will allow him to pay his mortgage and loans that he got while doing this job? There are plenty of programs available for those types of things. Jobs in the area is a sorry excuse. Make a job. Or Move. People do it all the time. His debts are not my problem, I didn't rack them up. Flint, Michigan is the perfect example of the devastation that can be caused by CEOs packing up and moving their business off shore where they can pay workers $3 per day. BS. Michigan is a perfect example of greedy unions forcing the companies to have no choice but to outsource the work because the local cost was beyond what the market and the business could bear. Who picks up the cost of the social devastation left in their wake? The taxpayers. Which is ironic too, since the government tries to entice businesses to stay with tax-breaks and other... what's that word you conservatives like to use... entitlements. So we've got ourselves into a situation these days where people instead of being paid to work are paying the corporations for the "privilege" of having a job. You'd prefer that we not have any safety net for people who lose their jobs... even when they were the ones who chased those jobs out of town? I do agree that it's not fair that taxpayers are on the hook for the jobs the workers themselves destroyed. That's what we do in our society though. We help even the self-destructive people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 You know nothing about what Roger Smith did to GM in the 80s, do you? They were profitable. They were making billions each year. He closed the plants in Flint and shipped production to Mexico because it was cheaper.... even though GM was still making billions. Sorry, but that's not union greed or employee greed. That's corporate greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 GM was in serious financial trouble when Smith took the helm. It's specifically because of the outsourcing, and downsizing that he was able to restore profitability to the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 You know nothing about what Roger Smith did to GM in the 80s, do you? They were profitable. They were making billions each year. He closed the plants in Flint and shipped production to Mexico because it was cheaper.... even though GM was still making billions. Sorry, but that's not union greed or employee greed. That's corporate greed. Sure. But this has nothing to do with how powerful Public Service Unions have become. It's like they're playing a different game than the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sorry, but that's not union greed or employee greed. That's corporate greed. It's not called greed if corporations do it. It sounds like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not. They're supposed to want more money and power to make money - it's what they do. I'd rather we stop adding moralistic terms to a desire for more cash on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's not called greed if corporations do it. It sounds like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not. They're supposed to want more money and power to make money - it's what they do. I'd rather we stop adding moralistic terms to a desire for more cash on both sides. Sure... But organized labour stands as a correct check against that unfettered corporate greed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Sure... But organized labour stands as a correct check against that unfettered corporate greed... With unfettered greed of their own? Local 416 sent out letters warning people that if they were locked out then access to hockey arenas will be limited. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/23/holyday-upset-over-cupe-local-416s-letter Bet they didn't do similar stuff when they went on Strike in 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 With unfettered greed of their own? Local 416 sent out letters warning people that if they were locked out then access to hockey arenas will be limited. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/23/holyday-upset-over-cupe-local-416s-letter Bet they didn't do similar stuff when they went on Strike in 2009. I'm not specifically talking about public sector unions... If you had'nt noticed,the discussion has broadened a bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm not specifically talking about public sector unions... If you had'nt noticed,the discussion has broadened a bit... Oh. At least with private-sector unions the employers ability to pay is a consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Oh. At least with private-sector unions the employers ability to pay is a consideration. Yeah, with public sector unions it's you and me whose ability to pay is completely disregarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.