CEO threatens layoffs if he is taxed any further

[Tinykong]

Unions are inherently political. They do not have direct firing power in almost all cases.

I worked for a grocery store when I was in high school that required union membership as a condition of employment, and refusal to pay union dues or vote during mandatory union meetings was grounds for immediate termination.

[chadwix]

Oh for sure. I'm just wondering if he could face an legal ramifications.

Voting is a private issue, they would have to prove they voted obama (would that evidence even be presentable?) and prove they were going to vote for romney. I dont see how this would be possible. Then you factor in damages which would be negated with increased operating costs (or so they doctor the books to say so, paying a vp 300k more isnt illegal ).

[Wells]

I worked for a grocery store when I was in high school that required union membership as a condition of employment, and refusal to pay union dues or vote during mandatory union meetings was grounds for immediate termination.

Violating your terms of employment is grounds for termination? Well yeah. But I said direct firing power. Unions don't have that, even in your example. The union doesn't have the power to fire you for whatever reason they want. That power still rests with the employer.

[Vokal]

I vote we do the same thing to this guy that happened to the last arrogant prick who lived in a place called Versailles

Well said.

I'll fetch the pitchforks, you get the guillotine ready.

[Tinykong]

Violating your terms of employment is grounds for termination? Well yeah. But I said direct firing power. Unions don't have that, even in your example. The union doesn't have the power to fire you for whatever reason they want. That power still rests with the employer.

I'm just pointing out that unions do have some control over your employment, they aren't the champion of the modern worker that some people like to paint them as.

[Wells]

But that's also irrelevant to my point.

[Fugus]

I'm just pointing out that unions do have some control over your employment, they aren't the champion of the modern worker that some people like to paint them as.

Unions may not be perfect and there are plenty of bad ones, but overall, we are MUCH better with them, then without them.

I am currently working for Walmart and really wish they had a Union at this point. Without one, the overall tone is that they don't see you as people, they see you as resources to be exploited. And this isn't even from my Bosses, this is from the policies that come from Corporate that they have to follow and the store manager that I never even see.

A good union is the best thing to have, followed by an average union, then no union and a bad union is the worst you want to have. But a bad union is only marginally worse than none at all in the long run.

[mrwingtipshoes]

I worked for a grocery store when I was in high school that required union membership as a condition of employment, and refusal to pay union dues or vote during mandatory union meetings was grounds for immediate termination.

Thats a great example. I interviewed to work at a grocery store and found out some fun things. First off "Look for management" means "looking for cashiers/baggers with ambition" Second off starting was min wage, or barely above, with no raise in the first year and after 3 months you had to join the union and pay them dues, including an "Entry fee" and "Back dues" from the day you started working till the day you applied to the union. IE lose an entire paycheck. IF you refused to join the union, refused to pay dues, left the union for any reason, refused to strike, refused to participate in any union activity then you were fired. Heres a couple of things to consider:

Upon job offer you had to sign a letter saying "Yes i will join the union"

First time dues could equal more your paycheck, if they did you had to pay out of pocket or sign a promissory letter saying they could dock your pay until it was all paid

Union "Activities" including normal meetings as we as things that were unpaid. Meeting at 8AM and didn't have to work till 3pm? Too bad be there at 7:55AM or else. This included some "Travel" not that it was far but up to 5 miles(usually for "regional meetings" and some "rally's" they could even make you to other peoples pickets.) Can't drive? The union would made "Reasonable attempts" to get you there, if not? Suck it up butter cup, get a ride or lose your job. Oh its your grandmothers 100th birthday? Oh too bad. Tickets to an even? Oh well.

Strikes were unpaid time that was made up after the problem was settled and could last months. Awesome no pay for months but still have to go to work to stand in the cold with sign. The company gets tired of it? You're fired, no income, no pay made up for that month of standing in the cold and now that you are unemployed the union could, and would, drop you with no consequences since part of being in the union is having a job in the right field. Oh! and that month of dues you paid? They get to keep that too.

The union could "Relocate" you and while not common of a min wage worker they could just tell you to go work at another union store with the same ownership and within "Reasonable distance" again, don't drive? Oh well.

The union controlled you pay rate, your min and max hours per day, week, month and year. They could drop you, more or less, at anytime for any reason. Know whats great about that? Since membership was a condition of employment you are now with out a job. Since employment was a condition of membership and membership was a condition of employment the union controlled everything with ZERO consequences.


They offered me a job on the spot I turned them down with a list of reasons why (I take notes in interviews, usually to keep track of benefits, uniform ect. Never had an employer have an issue with it.) The ladies response was "Yea well I don't have a choice asshole." Though she couldn't answer my big complaint of "Why did i apply for a management job and get offered a cashiers job?"

[Fugus]

mrwingtipshoes, sounds like you had worse than a bad union. Sounds like you had a corporate co-opted union at that.

Edit: Sounds like the store started and even headed that union man, wouldn't even consider it a union, I would see it as a store run club that you were required to join. That wasn't a true union.

[mrwingtipshoes]

mrwingtipshoes, sounds like you had worse than a bad union. Sounds like you had a corporate co-opted union at that.

Edit: Sounds like the store started and even headed that union man, wouldn't even consider it a union, I would see it as a store run club that you were required to join. That wasn't a true union.

Here the problem:

Today MANY unions are like that. Especially in a lot of "Everyman" professions. Why? Because that way there is little to no struggle with the company, the union makes money hand over fist and the peoples running the union essentially own a company with out any of the effort involved. On the other side the store keeps its profits coming in and has to deal with a little more red tape.

[Laize]

And that's crap too, it's part of this stupid system we have which favors massive conglomerate quasi-monopolies and market suppression over competition and free enterprise.

And I really hope you don't say that statement coming from me surprises you.

Actually I don't remember what the reason was. I believe it was some new corporate tax structure they had in Washington state. Microsoft threatened to take their thousands of jobs out of the state if it passed.

Out of curiosity though, don't liberals always say "If you don't like the laws the state/country passes, find a new state/country"?

[Wells]

No, vote with your feet is a conservative thing. Reagan came up with it.

[Fugus]

Here the problem:

Today MANY unions are like that. Especially in a lot of "Everyman" professions. Why? Because that way there is little to no struggle with the company, the union makes money hand over fist and the peoples running the union essentially own a company with out any of the effort involved. On the other side the store keeps its profits coming in and has to deal with a little more red tape.

I can see that. The problem is that Union leaders, just like any position of power, attracts the wrong kind of people. If someone wants that job, then 99% of the time, they are typically the worst person to have that job.

I can see a quick fix for that, Bar unions from collecting dues and no union leader gets paid extra for running it. Take the money out of the position and you will see a lot of the wrong people quit attempting to lead them. Anything the union wishes to do must be funded by member contributions but nothing is ever mandatory. But the list of who contributed and who didn't will be available to union members to keep freeloaders from trying to claim what they didn't fund.

Unions are meant to allow the employees bargaining power with the employers, not to be a free ride for the ones leading it.

[Sunseeker]

Out of curiosity though, don't liberals always say "If you don't like the laws the state/country passes, find a new state/country"?

No. If you don't like the way your town/city/county/state/nation is run you should try to change it. The only people I ever tell to GTFO are people who won't shut up about how awesome X or Y other country is and how much they want to move there. That's why I thought it was freaking awesome that Jet Blue is offering free one-way flights out of the country if your candidate loses. Seriously if you want to get out of America that badly, DO IT.

[Fugus]

No, vote with your feet is a conservative thing. Reagan came up with it.

Voting with your feet only works if you have other places you can go. If they have you by the balls, then voting with your feet doesn't work.

Also, talking of stuff that came from the guy who tried "Trickle Down" aka piss on you economics isn't the best person to quote for how to deal with a company. That is kinda like quoting Dick Cheney on morals and ethics. Cheney should have been in jail long before he ever ran for VP from when he sold Nuclear reactor parts to Iran against US law.

[Laize]

No. If you don't like the way your town/city/county/state/nation is run you should try to change it. The only people I ever tell to GTFO are people who won't shut up about how awesome X or Y other country is and how much they want to move there. That's why I thought it was freaking awesome that Jet Blue is offering free one-way flights out of the country if your candidate loses. Seriously if you want to get out of America that badly, DO IT.

No, vote with your feet is a conservative thing. Reagan came up with it.

But... then... you complain when corporations lobby and try to change it from within?

It seems to me that you guys just expect corporations to lie back and take it.

[Rorillane]

You guys completely negate the fact that taxes for companies in America are already as high as sugarhoneyicetea. If its at the point its bank breaking for them and more viable to lay people off (which includes their benefits and such) then a business should be able to do what it has to do inorder to stay afloat. If this is a cry out for "stop taxing me, you're breaking my company" Then it should be legal. If its the opposite and it is for political gain, they have more than enough funds to run their business etc, then it should be an issue.

I don't think a company voicing its concerns to the state government and its local/state people that it is being back-breaked by the taxes levied on it should be illegal and considered tyranny or whatever injust word people slap to it.

Theres a right and a wrong here.

[Sunseeker]

But... then... you complain when corporations lobby and try to change it from within?

I complain about the blatant bribery that goes on between government and big business. I don't have any problem with anyone lobbying for change, I do have a problem with people saying essentially "I'll give you a million dollars on your next campaign if you support this bill that gives me a million dollars."

It seems to me that you guys just expect corporations to lie back and take it.

What I expect is for companies to desire to earn the loyalty of their employees and customers, not feel entitled to it because they're employing you or selling you the product you want. I expect employers to want their employees to be happy in their employment, and for employees to want their employers to be happy with their work.

[Fugus]

You guys completely negate the fact that taxes for companies in America are already as high as sugarhoneyicetea. If its at the point its bank breaking for them and more viable to lay people off (which includes their benefits and such) then a business should be able to do what it has to do inorder to stay afloat. If this is a cry out for "stop taxing me, you're breaking my company" Then it should be legal. If its the opposite and it is for political gain, they have more than enough funds to run their business etc, then it should be an issue.

I don't think a company voicing its concerns to the state government and its local/state people that it is being back-breaked by the taxes levied on it should be illegal and considered tyranny or whatever injust word people slap to it.

Theres a right and a wrong here.

Actually the taxes on companies are VERY low. GE in 2010 actually paid ZERO in taxes and actually got money back.

Sorry man, but companies have learned to game that system to the extreme and it needs to have an overhaul so they can't avoid the taxes so much.

Another one, in 2010 (I think it was), google even said they only paid 2.4% on in taxes.

[Wells]

But... then... you complain when corporations lobby and try to change it from within?

Neither of us think corporations are people Laize. And I don't care that corporations lobby. I care that they lobby with almost no meaningful restrictions or checks.