View Full Version : Strip Club Depression
xdamage
08-05-2009, 11:39 AM
The UAW is a prime example of unions gone wrong; a case of abused workers unionizing, the situation being essentially remedied, and the now not entirely necessary union then abusing the company - and in more than one case, bankrupting it (and screwing themselves over in the process). When Gettfucker sat next to Wagoner in the congressional plea for bailout money gfor GM, I wanted to gag. As the head of that UAW local, he makes more than the President of GM did at that time. Were it not for the UAW's tactics and demands of the past 30 years, GM wouldn't have been in that meeting!
^^^Interesting points of course.
The thing is unions serve a purpose; they are not all bad or all good. There is a basic premise at play which is worthwhile, employers need employees and when employees cooperate, they have strong bargaining power, but it is complex too. There is a constant struggle between what employees want and want employers wants and while the struggle is fine, excessive tipping either way is possible. But I'm not a great believer in altruism, and Unions are ultimately just groups of people, and where people are concerned greed/corruption is likely without checks and balances.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=E1Q&q=uaw+gettelfinger+salary&cts=1249497099541&aq=1&oq=UAW+get&aqi=g2
"The UAW reported net assets of $1.23 billion, essentially flat compared with 2005. The union took in $303.8 million in 2006, including $59 million in interest income, which was down $2.9 million, or less than 1 percent, over 2005. Union dues fell about 3 percent to $191 million in 2006, the report shows."
"In total, the UAW has $1.2 billion in investments (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/AUTO01/704130353/1148#), including $861 million in U.S. Treasury securities. That excludes the value of its real estate, which is worth about $100 million. The value of the UAW's marketable securities declined from $262 million to $249 million in 2006, or about 5 percent."
"The UAW paid its employees $90 million in salary in 2006. Its officers made $2.9 million in 2006, with 22 regional directors, vice presidents and other officers getting more than $100,000 each.
It is a business pure and simple, with people doing this to make money like any other business. It is fine, and serves a purpose, but I certainly won't fool myself into believing it is being done for any greater good. Perhaps it started out that way, a vision, an idea but these things have a way of eventually just turning into businesses, people coming into work day in and day out for the piece of the pie it pays them.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-05-2009, 01:59 PM
It is a business pure and simple, with people doing this to make money like any other business. It is fine, and serves a purpose, but I certainly won't fool myself into believing it is being done for any greater good. Perhaps it started out that way, a vision, an idea but these things have a way of eventually just turning into businesses, people coming into work day in and day out for the piece of the pie it pays them.
The union officials serve at the pleasure of the members.
Remember the old AT&T? It was union in every owned company with benefits and pay equal to or better than UAW's pay. After the break up all of the old AT&T companies and AT&T remained union while most of the new competition MCI/WorldCom was not. MCI/WorldCom and AT&T were acquired by Verizon and the new at&t respectively. Both union and non union companies failed wile only union companies succeeded.
UPS the most successful delivery company is union with benefits and pay that leads the industry; so a strong union that gives a fare days work for a fare days pay is not the cause of a company’s failure.
xdamage
08-05-2009, 03:32 PM
UPS the most successful delivery company is union with benefits and pay that leads the industry; so a strong union that gives a fare days work for a fare days pay is not the cause of a company’s failure.
Never said it was, but you'd have to also look at how many companies are non-union and also succeed; in the end it might be a general wash with union officials basically just skimming the cream anywhere they can.
Besides I'm not saying unions are all bad, just that it can easily turn into another angle to make money and that's what motivates union officials to show up to work day after day.
I suspect they work quite well in some types of business, but less so in others. In ours we run with less people, and the work is quite competitive. We have no fixed pay scales and stars can earn more.
I've also worked in an organization with HUGE numbers of people and pretty much everyone wanted more, and budgets were wildly out of control. Even internally many said the union promoted laziness because firing was so difficult to do and why work harder then the laziest person? You didn't get a dime more for it.
Like most things there are trade-offs.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-05-2009, 05:22 PM
Even internally many said the union promoted laziness because firing was so difficult to do and why work harder then the laziest person? You didn't get a dime more for it.
Not at all, those that want to be promoted will work harder the others as hard as necessary; the same as in all companies. Workers have production quotas and if one is constantly not making her numbers management will document it and with progressive discipline she will be fired. Union people are fired all of the time it just can’t be arbitrary and capricious.
What a union can stop is someone coming in before her scheduled shift or not taking a lunch break and working without pay. No thinking person can honestly say workers would be treated fairly if it were not for unions. Unions help the unrepresented as those companies will treat their workers better so they will not form a union. If people followed the “Golden Rule” many things would not be necessary; like the following.
I wonder how the Polish union made out.
1980: Polish workers win trade union rights
Striking Polish workers have won a sweeping victory in a two-month battle with their Communist rulers for the right to independent trade unions and the right to strike.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41159000/jpg/_41159179_walesa1_bbc_238.jpg
Almost Jaded
08-05-2009, 06:37 PM
Earl - everything you say makes it obvious that you are a pro-union, won't-hear-the-rest kind of person I know a lot of those. Referring to RTW states as "Right to Bust" is a giveaway, lol. Try to look at it from a neutral stance. Also, your info re NV and unions is way off. Your statement about not paying dues blah blah is common anti-RTW rhetoric, and is only part of the story. Xdamage promotes part of the other side with his point a' la' lazy workers not getting fired.
More later, gotta go right now...
xdamage
08-05-2009, 07:02 PM
There are always trade-offs; you just have to be willing to look for them. Unions aren't all bad or all good. They can work pretty well under the right circumstances but like anything else become a cancer too. Mostly it's just about keeping one's eyes wide open and not looking for magic solutions. It might work but it might not. There are just so many variables from a thousand decisions to the people themselves there is no sure way to know if a union would leave strippers better or worse off. Both outcomes are possible.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-05-2009, 08:16 PM
Earl - everything you say makes it obvious that you are a pro-union, won't-hear-the-rest kind of person I know a lot of those. Referring to RTW states as "Right to Bust" is a giveaway, lol. Try to look at it from a neutral stance. Also, your info re NV and unions is way off. Your statement about not paying dues blah blah is common anti-RTW rhetoric, and is only part of the story. Xdamage promotes part of the other side with his point a' la' lazy workers not getting fired.
I hear-the-rest and have heard the rest. The unions don't deny anyone the "right to work" that is a euphemism for busting unions.
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union.All states have different laws in Nevada a company is prohibited from entering into an exclusive contract with a union. That is taking away a company’s right to hire who they want for a job.
§ 613.250. Agreements prohibiting employment because of nonmembership in labor organization prohibited.
No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization, or shall the state, or any subdivision thereof or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization.Look at the earnings of states and pro union states do better on average no matter how one looks at it.
Per capita income US average $36,714 .
Anti union states above the average 4.
Anti union states below the average 17.
Union states above the average 16.
Union states below the average 12.
xdamage
08-05-2009, 08:34 PM
From personal experience, I've worked both under a union for many years (10s of thousands of employees) and eventually moved on to smaller companies without them. The later has been infinitely more emotionally satisfying, even if we worked up to 80+ hours a week for 40hrs pay, no unions. Why? Because passion is priceless and while my former colleagues were doing the bare minimum to earn their guaranteed salary, my later colleagues actually loved what they do, and the compensation was not their only goal. Unions serve a purpose for sure and are a necessary evil, but there are businesses where they just have no place. Not all employers are abusive. And not all employees won't abuse a system either. Checks and balances are needed both ways.
Almost Jaded
08-06-2009, 10:57 AM
I am familiar with Taft-Hartley, I know the argument from both sides, I worked for an AT&T company both before and after that office unionized, I've worked for companies where unions helped, I've worked for companies where unions destroyed the business. It can work both ways.
Your claim that Ford workers get the same package as GM workers is dead wrong; GM was paying more than double the next highest union contract by the late '90's. And the next highest, BTW, was Chrysler. UAW representatives at the table during the last strike were told that their demands would bankrupt the company within 20 years. They didn't care. At tast round of negotiations under threat of strike (2004/05), a few concessions were made when GM showed that the aforementioned BK was looming, but it wasn't enough. Had the economy not tanked as it did, they would have struggled on for a few more years, but the end was inevitable with the ongoing retirement and healthcare benefits that they would not concede on.
When Saturn was created, a completely new agreement with the UAW was formulated from the beginning, before anything was in place. It was amazing how they worked together. When the rest of the GM local went on strike in '96 (IIRC), Saturn workers - who had a separate agreement and had no need to strike - continued to work. The union brought IMMENSE pressure to bear on the non-striking Saturn employees; one told me he feaared for hi families safety if he didn't vote to strike. They eventually did, joining their contract with the rest of the GM local - and the company was never the same. The sad thing is, the "special" deal with the Saturn employees was to be a model for the rest of GM, and everyone would have been better off in the long run. Penny smart, pound foolish.
Unions can be a VERY good thing. But what's wrong with calling well enough good? Why must a union continue to increase demands every few years once things are in a state of "good enough"? A stable benefits package, a clear retirement benefit, and regular cost of living raises is all anyone nee ever ask for. Bending a company over a barrel only causes friction with the workers and undue burdens for the company. Looked at the U.S. steel industry lately? What? What do you mean we don't really have a steel industry anymore? :rolleyes:
xdamage
08-06-2009, 11:32 AM
Unions can be a VERY good thing. But what's wrong with calling well enough good? Why must a union continue to increase demands every few years once things are in a state of "good enough"? A stable benefits package, a clear retirement benefit, and regular cost of living raises is all anyone nee ever ask for. Bending a company over a barrel only causes friction with the workers and undue burdens for the company. Looked at the U.S. steel industry lately? What? What do you mean we don't really have a steel industry anymore? :rolleyes:
They are for sure good things, but also we live in a world-wide economy, and except for certain local services, a lot of types of work can be farmed out, and most goods imported.
Individually we humans want the biggest cut of the pie we can get, and of course that makes sense, but it's possible to win battles and lose the war as a result of spending far too many resources into the battle and ignoring the cost of the war ahead.
What is good for short term gains is not necessarily what will result in a sustainable business, at least not when measured by the productivity in other parts of the world where workers accepted less in exchange for jobs. For others, their choices are often no work, or some work, versus work with more benefits.
I'm completely in favor of unions, and putting checks on employers, but also think there is good enough point after which there is a risk the union officials also require checks and balances to avoid moving companies into positions where they are bloated, too expensive to run, not competitive with other companies.
Almost Jaded
08-06-2009, 04:41 PM
Precisely.
In both the auto and steel industries in the U.S., it wasn't the union per se - okay, maybe in teh case of GM, lol - but in what happened when the bell tolled. When the unionized companies which were on life support already under union oppression (lol) had to compete with foreign products on a large scale. Our government could have stemmed the tide in the case of steel in the form of tariffs and the like, but did not intervene; hastening what would have been a longer, slower - but still inevitable - death.
Basically Earls "right-to-bust" attitude is one of viewing all comanies as evil and greedy and ready to swindle their employees at every opportunity and the altruistic unions doing everything in their power to stand up for the poor abused workers. Fact is, with minimum wage laws, healthcare laws, OSHA standards, and more, the issues that unions were created to fight are largely gone. Most businesses have figured out that it's in their best interests to take care of employees. Abuses still happen, and unions can still serve a purpose - but unions are far from all roses themselves.
A right to work state simply means that a worker who doesn't want to be in a union doesn't have to be in order to work. If there were free enterprise involved in teh unions like there is in business, this wouldn't be necessary, lol.
I am also not anti-union. I just object to the pro-union rhetoric that's so often misleading and just plain inaccurate.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-06-2009, 09:37 PM
Basically Earls "right-to-bust" attitude is one of viewing all comanies as evil and greedy and ready to swindle their employees at every opportunity.If we don't remember history we are doomed to repeat it.
xdamage
08-06-2009, 09:59 PM
If we don't remember history we are doomed to repeat it.
Yes, but most of us live 60 years or so. Our minds are not well tuned to thinking about history beyond the few short years we live. We probably won't be the first or last country that saw good times, whose people's expectations changed, who then had never learned from history and watched their life style errode as somewhere else in the world another large group of people flourish(ed) for a while. There are both short term and long term economic patterns.
Unions seem pretty aware of short term patterns, but that doesn't mean they are aware of or care about long term patterns or viability. Well they could be, but without checks and balances humans tend to only be concerned with whatever immediate benefits they can receive, no matter that there is a long term greater cost which will ultimately leave them, and the next generation, worse off.
Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 12:39 PM
If we don't remember history we are doomed to repeat it.
You cannot possibly think to get away with that selective snip, when this reply so clearly requires the dismissal of the body of the quoted post.
Let's look at businesses and operations in the past. 80 hour or more required work weeks, horribly dangerous working conditions, rampant use of child labor, substandard pay for women, and on and on. Unions were instrumental in changing those conditions and others. Today, a non-union shop must still meet legal minimum wage laws and OSHA safety requirements. Child labor would land people in prison. Paying someone differently based on age, race, or gender would get them sued into oblivion. There are laws on place requiring certain benefits re access to health care, paid time off, and more.
Compared to many countries around the world - even industrialized, "civilized" ones - a non-union shop in a right to work state that "takes advantage" of its workforce by your standard is a Godsend.
On top of that, most businesses - especially larger companies - recognize the value in retaining employees and reducing turnover. As a result, the non-union legal minimums go out the window, and many people in non-union shops enjoy favorable wages, benefits, and working conditions.
But for many - pardon me but I must - people like you Earl, that's not enough. It wasn't enough for the UAW or the Steel Workers. The unions will demand pay that is out of line with the work being done, benefits and retirement packages that make Government employees green with envy, and more. And if the company says enough is enough, they strike. Unions present this attitude that id the business is profitable, they must be fucking over the workers, the workers should get a bigger piece of the pie. And then those same workers cry on the news about how they got screwed becuase the company went under... :rolleyes:
And that's not even addressing the underhanded BS that the unions pull with people who dare to not want to be a part of it! That's a whole new train right there, my friend!
Earl_the_Pearl
08-07-2009, 01:39 PM
. There are laws on place requiring certain benefits re access to health care, paid time off, and more.
On top of that, most businesses - especially larger companies - recognize the value in retaining employees and reducing turnover. As a result, the non-union legal minimums go out the window, and many people in !
Do you have a link to these laws? We have laws forbidding hiring illegal aliens that business wipes their ass with daily. Where do you live, Lake Wobegon?
The reason non union works get so much is because of union workers.
?
Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 04:11 PM
The reason non union works get so much is because of union workers.
In most - not all but most - of the union businesses I've worked in or dealt with, the union workers are the laziest most entitled assholes I've ever dealt with. People who aren't protected by a bullshit contract and covered by threat of general strike actually produce to keep their jobs.
There - I offered just as much to back my statement as you did yours. Care to raise that bar a little?
xdamage
08-07-2009, 04:30 PM
I have my own story of dealing with GM many years ago.
The essence of the story is we were bidding for a software contract where we watched nearly a dozen people sitting around all day reading the paper, eating donuts, shooting the shit... I was busy setting up a demo, which took an immense amount of time as we waited for union workers to slowly approve the equipment install they knew was coming. This went on all day.
Finally they spent about 15 minutes to shoot a small amount of video footage for a training video and then went back to the donuts.
Nobody seemed the slightest bit bothered by the sheer display of waste.
The amount of B.S. I overheard in the restrooms, on the floor while we moved from building to building, the vast size of the plants, just left me realizing it was a company that was neck deep in the kind of apathetic people I used to work with (and was so happy to be free of).
Again I don't think unions are fundamentally bad, just that without checks and balances it can become it's own kind of cancer destroying companies from within.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-07-2009, 04:51 PM
The essence of the story is we were bidding for a software contract where we watched nearly a dozen people sitting around all day reading the paper, eating donuts, shooting the shit... I was busy setting up a demo, which took an immense amount of time as we waited for union workers to slowly approve the equipment install they knew was coming. This went on all day.
What was the title of the workers? I find it most unusual that a represented employee would have approval authority as that is universally a management prerogative.
Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 09:03 PM
I will bet it was a couple of managers and a few represented workers. The managers know they can't do anything about it, and the "workers" are just doing business as usual.
Earl - have you ever spent time in a GM plant? A union steel mill? It is one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed. And when some of these people are prodded into rel work, they get FURIOUS. I estimate GM's true cost per hour for the $28 an hour workers - not counting benefits, just salary - was almost doubled by the sheer amount of redundant jobs and laziness. The steel mill a very good friend of mine... Ran, I'll say... Wasn't whole lot better, though it wasn't QUITE as bad.
You seem to think that these opinions are formed from nowhere. You're wrong.
goreantx
08-07-2009, 09:41 PM
I love that everyone is missing the best part about a Stripper's Union.
The picket protests.
They would piss us off just to sit in their cars and jack off.
:P
Earl_the_Pearl
08-07-2009, 11:24 PM
I love that everyone is missing the best part about a Stripper's Union.
The picket protests.
They would piss us off just to sit in their cars and jack off.
:P
PLEASE I know dancers can dress down; they do it so they will not be hit on. I would post a picture to prove my point but cannot get approval.
Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 03:15 PM
I love that everyone is missing the best part about a Stripper's Union.
The picket protests.
They would piss us off just to sit in their cars and jack off.
Priceless!