Give Oil Company profits to the people

[PandaBear]

I think union is a huge problem other than labor cost. Labor is so diverse that you cannot get the same productivity out of 50 different workers. In many unionized workplace, there will be hard workers who can't get promoted but the slackers who abuse the union protections. In that case, this makes the hard workers slackers eventually. I've seen it first hand.

Of course, this also happens to large companies with too much politics. Boss promotes people who he/she likes and kiss his/her behind, and the ones you don't like do all the works and got no credit for the results.

Good thing we (engineers in the valley) has more bargaining power than union, and our compensation isn't correlated to the slackers in the same office.

 

[Shannow]

PandaBear,

from what I've seen, Unions and Management are the yin/yang.

If you have good, solid management who recognise performance, share in prosperity (and even include the workers when things hit the fan) people don't feel that they need to be in a union.

At least in my experience (and I've been in and out of the union over the last couple decades), people consider unions as they do insurance, not lotteries.

I've never seen a union campaign for greater concessions or a reduction in productivity.

 

[Gary Allan]

On my last union job we attempted to tie compensation in with productivity. The management wanted no part of it. The way it effectively worked was that there was so much labor allotted for the given product output. So, as the way things went, the semi-profit sharing always ended up in overtime. That's traditionally how management "shared" ..so to speak. It really was, more or less, buffered into the whole mix. It allowed management the throttle for high output. So, many days the production would be light stroking ..while getting hammered on the weekends. The union proposed that the wage compensation be tied to the product out the door. Same product/same $$$. The company wouldn't hear of it. Layoffs and whatnot were not off the table. Reductions in workers comp would be 50:50 with the company ..with 5% residuals in the future avoided costs...etc..etc.

They wouldn't hear of it. They liked their little prison. That's what most union jobs are, a prison. They can't willfully leave them.

 

[Shannow]

Gary,
each side are their own worst enemies, and each of them feel that they are fighting rear guard rather than attack.

Saw one case where the employer was pushing for a sick leave "pool" rather than individual entitlement. Wanting the employees to start "managing" the malingerers through peer pressure, while limiting the accumulated sick leave "debt"

There was a poor terminally ill b@stard who had used his sick, annual, long service, personal leave entitlements, and the company were about to issue a "turn up on Monday, or you are sacked" letter.

Their employees, noting that the company was pushing for pooled sick leave offered to have their own leave reduced to keep this family functioning.

Neither the management of the company, nor the unions would allow it to be.

 

[Gary Allan]

I agree. In Waste Treatment, we had the dreaded Timken Schedule. We were 24/7/365. The plant (production/maintenance) were Monday-Friday ..with Saturday and Sunday as overtime. We benefited from this (sorta) in that we got paid premium pay for the shifts that worked on the defined weekend days. But it wasn't as much of an easy deal (6days pay for 5days work) because, initially, if you worked your day off, it was at straight time. The management put in 6th and 7th days since they couldn't get anyone to work when they needed them for straight pay. The thing is, we had NO SICK DAYS. Initially, if you knocked off during the week, you lost your premium pay for the weekend. That meant 2 days pay lost for 2 of the shifts, and if you managed to make it up, your days off were at straight time too. The company silently waved this since the skill level was rather high and the pay was $1.85 ahead of the janitor (the most coveted position).

Now there was a reason for this (the other shoe). They initially didn't have the part about it being required for you to work 40 hours to get your premium weekend pay. Naturally, this meant that some would knock off Monday and Tuesday if they knew Saturday or Saturday and Sunday scheduled.

Now when the holidays fell on Fridays and Mondays, a few too many production workers punched out early on Thursday ..or didn't show up at all (on either end). This caused the management to require you to work the full day before and after the holiday to get your holiday pay. Now this curbed the antics of the production folks ..but remember, we were 24/7/365. If you happened to get sick and knock off on the day before the holiday that you were also scheduled, you could actually work the holiday and not get paid for it.

To make a long story longer (the point) we typically made about 50% over anyone in the plant. We had all the holidays (11) at either counting as a day worked at straight time or got overtime in addition if we were scheduled. Essentially we had, on average, 3 weeks additional pay. If you were one of the back shift that had two days off during the week, and the double holiday fell on both your days off, it turned your Sunday into a 7th day (2X rate). You couldn't lose. With working no true OT, you were at the overtime rate of the plant ..and your vacation was based on last years earnings ..which meant that you were paid nearly overtime for taking off. We were allowed to split our days up as we pleased, so you could take off all of your week days (get just shy of OT rate) and work your premium days for premium pay. It was very hard (most of us were at max vac of 4 weeks) to not get paid for 57 weeks of pay for 48 weeks of work. Single days of vacation were filled with 4hours over and under ..and it was a piece of cake to boost it to 60+ weeks pay. This was in addition to any projects or emergencies. 400 to 600 hours finally calmed down to about 200+/- in OT

With all that benefit (if you're only looking from a $$ standpoint), the union refused to even consider a 24/7 schedule ..even though hardly any overtime was ever refused when offered by production. They wanted the right to that Saturday and Sunday off ..even if they never actually got to take it off. They were afraid of the company jerking them around with oddball schedules due to "years ago" practices. The management knew this was a sore spot ..and put it on the list of demands for every contract. Never intending to put it in place.

It was a never ending chess match out of "tradition". There was some dysfunctional romance going on there.

 

[PandaBear]

Gary,

So how can production be scheduled when everyone wants to maximize the OT with this weird scheme. Why not just give out responsibilities and pay a higher salary, so people (both management and workers) can get a sense of responsibility?

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Gary,

So how can production be scheduled when everyone wants to maximize the OT with this weird scheme. Why not just give out responsibilities and pay a higher salary, so people (both management and workers) can get a sense of responsibility?


Exactly! I wanted to get the same compensation for the same output.

In our situation there were labor quotients that were applied to given outputs.

Let me give you the mentality in place with organized labor ..and more importantly those who managed facilities. Take Dana Corp's Parish plant. It was, effectively, a "job shop". They welded various frames and whatnot ..for GM, AM General, whomever.

The workers were organized and paid under the standard package that I describe above. The management, under the terms of their contract with the customer, were effectively a T&M contractor providing the facility. Let's say "labor @ 150% and material @ 150% of costs" ..whatever. Hence the only way the management made any more profit ..was to bang up the labor costs.

This is why OT is effectively "profit sharing that you earn" even if you don't necessarily "earn it well".

Now a more sensible and MUTUALLY beneficial method would be to give the same output and realize the same "gains" without all the mandated time involved ..and even realize economies between the two ...but since both are going to have an assured desire to take it all and give none ..then you're always left with mutually assured lack of productivity.

Management has no desire to make labor a partner.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Not at all. Those illegals are providing services that are below market rate ..yet extracting the most expensive tax supported public services while contributing nothing to the public coffers.

Please explain the differentiation between illegals doing this and legals doing the same thing?

Quote:
Your standard of living would be much lower without the tinkerings of union labor.

How much do the executives in Big Union make? We never hear this. Unions have become the very thing they were established to fight against.
Back when I was in high school, the teachers went on strike (So Cal.). Came to light that the president of the teachers union made 150K and had a limo with driver (making 60K a year).
Modern unions are a pyramid scheme pure and simple.

 

[Shannow]

Tempest won't go so far as agreeing completely, but am somewhat along the path you describe.

Most of the big union battles I've seen over the last few years have been a battle for the survival of the union, rather than the members.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

Quote:
Not at all. Those illegals are providing services that are below market rate ..yet extracting the most expensive tax supported public services while contributing nothing to the public coffers.

Please explain the differentiation between illegals doing this and legals doing the same thing?


Come on, Tempest, no one will buy that you're worth a dime that you're paid if you can't see how someone embedded in the US LEGIT economy can compete with an undocumented (or documented) illegal.

Please, no one is going to buy it. Try and remember your audience.

..errr ..and by the way... let's say that your union outfit takes the pay cut that you think it deserves to help you be competitive ....will you take the exact same percentage cut? The people at par and above you? The owner?

Why not? Wouldn't that help the company be more competitive??

 

[PandaBear]

The way I see it, there is no way a citizen of any country (not just US) can compete with illegal immigrants, the only exception might be the 3rd world countries who export them in the first place.

Now, that doesn't means they made no contribution. Lower cost is always good for a society in general, except that it cost more for some and less for others. If you are competing for rents, health care, social services, and don't make much, you lose. If you drive a BMW, eat out every meal, have a maid at home, send you kids to private school, you win.

No body wants to be illegal, except most have no choice. Free health care means nothing when you are living off minimum wage and share a bedroom with 4 other migrant workers, constantly on the run from the raids, and bring a microwave to work to save on lunch expense every single day.

 

[Gary Allan]

They're invaders, PandaBear. They're stealing services and wages that rightfully and lawfully belong to the American people. They occupy, illegally, land within the USA.

To the invaded, does it matter who the invader is?

Does it matter who is the richer or more needy in an invasion?

Is a poor thief or a rich one any less a thief?

..or can we consider someone like the Israelis ..armed real estate developers simply because the settlements that they creat place productive resources where there were none before???

Now if you want to serve two tours of duty in some war enterprise ..and survive, then I think we could come to some arrangement about granting citizenship to hemispheric aliens.

We can create ....The American Foreign Legion

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Come on, Tempest, no one will buy that you're worth a dime that you're paid if you can't see how someone embedded in the US LEGIT economy can compete with an undocumented (or documented) illegal.

You are ignoring the question:
Quote:
yet extracting the most expensive tax supported public services while contributing nothing to the public coffers.

How is this different from illegals (if they work they are probably actually paying taxes under a false SS#) and legals that are sitting on their butts collecting gov. entitlements?
Economically, nothing.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
They're invaders, PandaBear. They're stealing services and wages that rightfully and lawfully belong to the American people. They occupy, illegally, land within the USA.

To the invaded, does it matter who the invader is?

Does it matter who is the richer or more needy in an invasion?

Is a poor thief or a rich one any less a thief?

..or can we consider someone like the Israelis ..armed real estate developers simply because the settlements that they creat place productive resources where there were none before???

Now if you want to serve two tours of duty in some war enterprise ..and survive, then I think we could come to some arrangement about granting citizenship to hemispheric aliens.

We can create ....The American Foreign Legion

I do agree with you to some extend. What I am trying to say is that this is not a US only problem. Every developed nation (even some not so developed nations) has this problem and no one has ever solved this yet.

Regarding to whether it makes a difference between poor thief vs. rich thief, or who the invaders are. I do think that it makes a difference: A poor thief stop when he has a choice that is better than being a theif, a rich theif doesn't stop, but want to steal for more when he is richer.

I'm not saying that we should give every 3rd world a handout. What I am saying is, the only way for 3rd world immigrants (both legal and illegal) to stop coming is when their home countries becomes developed.

You hardly see illegal aliens from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Germany, France, Brittan, etc. Yet you see a ton of them from China, Russia, Mexico, Columbia, etc.

IMO if Mexico is reformed/developed to the level of Brazil and Argentina, then there will be fewer of them coming. If it is developed to the level of Canada, then we don't need to worry about border at all.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Come on, Tempest, no one will buy that you're worth a dime that you're paid if you can't see how someone embedded in the US LEGIT economy can compete with an undocumented (or documented) illegal.

You are ignoring the question:


Restate it, please.

Quote:
yet extracting the most expensive tax supported public services while contributing nothing to the public coffers.

How is this different from illegals (if they work they are probably actually paying taxes under a false SS#) and legals that are sitting on their butts collecting gov. entitlements?
Economically, nothing. [/quote]

We have an unemployment condition. Unless you're on another planet ..this false figure likes to hang around 5%. Above it wer're in recession, below it we're in inflation. Wall St. likes us @ 5%. These are ONLY those who have applied and are currently receiving compensation vs. new jobs. Now you somehow think at a new undercutting underclass is improving the "holding capacity" of any given environment for those that we currently cannot employ??? They enable more poverty as they displace more people at the lower wage threshold.


..errr...and what about you and the boss taking a parallel cut in pay to "contribute to the competitive edge", hmmm (a Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. "hmmm?")??

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
What I am trying to say is that this is not a US only problem. Every developed nation (even some not so developed nations) has this problem and no one has ever solved this yet.


It can't be solved. It's not a matter of other nations becoming developed. You've got a finite number of developed resources and they're enjoyed by very few. The west and the developed Asian nations command most of them ..since they can pay for them. As the 3rd world develops (as you may be noticing) ..we, pretty much collectively, decline. It's not a matter of them "coming up to reach our level of prosperity". We've done everything we can to stall this evolution and it's no longer a tenable situation. Meanwhile the transitioning agro societies that breed like bacteria migrate from fertile field to fertile field ..pick it clean ..and move on. This is particularly apparent in western Europe.

We have a decent advantage from overseas. Hemispheric migration is like a locust swam.

Can I help myself to your wallet, your liberty, and your property ...simply because I can't figure a way to get those things myself? Can I move in and redecorate your house, rename your streets, change your language? Take my culture and exchange it with yours? Can I use your water, your heat, eat your food ...all without your permission??

Give me your address.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Can I help myself to your wallet, your liberty, and your property ...simply because I can't figure a way to get those things myself? Can I move in and redecorate your house, rename your streets, change your language? Take my culture and exchange it with yours? Can I use your water, your heat, eat your food ...all without your permission??


No to all the above, but that is an invalid comparison.

But how can you say that job and income is an entitlement? That is a socialist mentality, not something capitalist.

Illegal immigrants usually pick the bottom level jobs that pay low and are undesirable. The right thing to do is to unionize those job if you want a closed employment system, but if an illegal alien takes the job, whatever he earn is his, and it is not stealing. Collecting welfare? Paying employment tax? Using public health care? Like Tempest said, since the illegal is using a fake SSN, he usually does all the above just like another low income US citizen. The difference? 1) illegal can't vote, 2) illegal has to run and hide from INS, 3) illegal has no chance of getting a high income job that does background check.

If you live in a neighborhood full of immigrants, and they decide to change the street name, speak in their own language, live within their culture, decorate their houses the way they want it, and pass laws that tolerate those things. That's not stealing, that's call freedom and democracy.

As for natural resource? If we got outbid by another foreign country, we can only blame we didn't pay enough for it, or use too much of it.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
But how can you say that job and income is an entitlement?


Where did I say that it was? I merely point out that legal and bona fide citizens ..law abiding, are being asked to subsidize business owners at the public's expense due to illegals undercutting wages.

That's very simple to figure out. Tempest falsely asserts that we have "free loaders" here that we're paying for and that, since he figures that he can dodge the taxation penalty and capitalize on the lower wage aspect, that I should not mind that 3rd worlder's "help themselves" to high cost medicine and high cost educational services (etc..etc..etc.)

..but that is really a totally disingenuous FAUX News commentary on it. What it means that, in addition to our capitalist mandate that we maintain a (totally under reported in manipulated data) 5% unemployment rate to have a "good economy" ..that we now displace even MORE legit workers that were paying the bills of society. Meanwhile we cost radically more on the socialized cost of the undocumented workers and their 3rd world bacteria fertility rate.