Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 369 of 632 FirstFirst ... 269319359367368369370371379419469 ... LastLast
Results 5,521 to 5,535 of 9467
  1. #5521
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    63,124

    This is why they kneel

    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    [/B]

    Bold 1…Negotiators on the side of the public are not negotiating with their own $$$$. They have nothing to lose by giving in to ridiculous demands.

    Bold 2…Ba da boom, ba da bing. I would also add…very reasonable when you consider the quality of the product they produce.
    Bold one- often mgt in the private sector isn’t paying with there own money and not true- I don’t think this even needs to be explained.

    Bold two- you must think that the system is working if it is reasonable and without these super powerful unions their pay would be unreasonable low


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 09-03-2020 at 12:49 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  2. #5522
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by
    Bold one- often … in the private sector most of the time and not true- I don’t think this even needs to be explained.

    Bold two- you must think the system is working then bc without these super powerful unions logically there pay would be unreasonable low


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Para 1: Wrong…bad deals in the private sector will affect stock prices, stock sales, expansion etc.. Management is often paid based on the bottom line, especially bonuses. Public sector just raises taxes. Most people just vote for incumbents regardless of what they have done (see "DiBlasio, Bill, Mayor, NYC)

    Para2: Wrong. "without these super powerful unions logically there (sic) pay would be" would be based on performance. The better employees would be paid more $$$$. (Crazy ides, I know.)

  3. #5523
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,050
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/us/ro...ath/index.html





    this black man wasn't treated right.

    is a spit sock really something legit used? how can it be okay to put something like this over someone's head.

    this is an incident where I could see mental health experts going to the scene along with police, and for them to have the first interaction. police don't need to be arriving and expecting a criminal scene.
    You are right. Good job. I know you complain about not getting credit when you agree with liberal opinions so I want to ensure you get that validation.

  4. #5524
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Police unions typically support Republican candidates. Teachers unions typically support democrat candidates. Wanting to abolish both of those unions, seems pretty independent to me. Neither Political side outright supports legalizing all drugs but it’s a solution to the issue.

    You want to abolish racism. It’s not that I don’t believe racism exists. I don’t believe we can abolish people’s thoughts and feelings. In a free society, you are allowed to hate anyone for any reason, including race. I think it’s stupid and you won’t get far in life with that viewpoint but to each their own. However, you are not allowed to have that viewpoint cause you to violate another persons rights. This is especially true for law enforcement. We need a system in which bad police officers (including racist ones) can be easily reprimanded when need be without union interference. Currently, if a cop is to be reprimanded his union representation must be present. And after 5 hrs of debating with the union rep, the cop walks with a slap on the wrist. This system cannot exist if bad and racist cops are to be weeded out.

    Please tell me how this viewpoint is racist and tribalistic?
    First, there are more public sector unions than just police and teachers, and you are talking about abolishing them all. Second, abolishing teachers unions or any other public sector union has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of police violence, so why is it your main talking point? That is very tribalistic. It'd be like me saying "the way to solve police violence is universal healthcare", it's just... not tangential to the point at all.

    I think the goal should be abolishing racism, but we all know that will never happen. But we can strive to reduce racism to the lowest level possible, and you aren't even willing to go that far. You say you are allowed to hate anyone for any reason, including race, except not when you're a police officer. Remember we are talking about cops, they are public servants who must serve all equally. Saying that you think it's possible for a cop to be racist against black people and also faithfully fulfill his duties without prejudice is as big a pipe dream as ending racism.

    These are generalities and empty platitudes reinforcing your ideological beliefs. Which makes sense, because you don't actually believe the problem exists, so of course you're not talking about it. You're defaulting to the same rhetoric you always do. Because you can't have specificity for a problem you specifically don't believe in.
    Last edited by valade16; 09-03-2020 at 01:02 PM.

  5. #5525
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Para 1: Wrong…bad deals in the private sector will affect stock prices, stock sales, expansion etc.. Management is often paid based on the bottom line, especially bonuses. Public sector just raises taxes. Most people just vote for incumbents regardless of what they have done (see "DiBlasio, Bill, Mayor, NYC)

    Para2: Wrong. "without these super powerful unions logically there (sic) pay would be" would be based on performance. The better employees would be paid more $$$$. (Crazy ides, I know.)
    Then how come they aren't getting paid more?

  6. #5526
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Then how come they aren't getting paid more?
    Because of the union.

    Unions treat everyone the same (and you know that). They pretty much pay for mediocrity. If my students all have great math scores and yours don't we get the same pay if we have been there the same amount of time (and you know that).

    Private business pays better employees more $$$ because they don't want to lose them (and you know that).

  7. #5527
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Because of the union.

    Unions treat everyone the same (and you know that). They pretty much pay for mediocrity. If my students all have great math scores and yours don't we get the same pay if we have been there the same amount of time (and you know that).

    Private business pays better employees more $$$ because they don't want to lose them (and you know that).
    Amazon has no Unions and their better workers aren't getting paid any better than their bad ones. Wal-Mart has no Unions and their better workers aren't getting paid any better than their bad ones. I could give plenty of other examples.

    Historically, compensation actually goes down when you get rid of Unions. So the truth is, when you get rid of unions nobody ends up getting paid more $$$. Companies don't go "Hey, I saved $20,000 a year on this bad employee now that there's no Union, let me instead give that money to a good employee", they go "I now get an extra $20,000".

  8. #5528
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,078
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First, there are more public sector unions than just police and teachers, and you are talking about abolishing them all. Second, abolishing teachers unions or any other public sector union has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of police violence, so why is it your main talking point? That is very tribalistic. It'd be like me saying "the way to solve police violence is universal healthcare", it's just... not tangential to the point at all.

    I think the goal should be abolishing racism, but we all know that will never happen. But we can strive to reduce racism to the lowest level possible, and you aren't even willing to go that far. You say you are allowed to hate anyone for any reason, including race, except not when you're a police officer. Remember we are talking about cops, they are public servants who must serve all equally. Saying that you think it's possible for a cop to be racist against black people and also faithfully fulfill his duties without prejudice is as big a pipe dream as ending racism.

    These are generalities and empty platitudes reinforcing your ideological beliefs. Which makes sense, because you don't actually believe the problem exists, so of course you're not talking about it. You're defaulting to the same rhetoric you always do. Because you can't have specificity for a problem you specifically don't believe in.
    There is an issue in inner cities-I understand the main focus in this thread is police brutality but there’s an overall issue with inner cities. If I had to name two of the biggest issues in inner city it would be crime/police brutality and education. Obviously there’s a lot of side issues but they almost all lead back to this issue. Also, a better education system would help lead to less crime and hopefully less police brutality.

    I stated just a few posts ago that especially police cannot violate a persons rights for whatever the reason, including racism. Do you believe the current system rightfully reprimands poor police officers, including racist ones? If so, why do you think these officers are not properly reprimanded? Do you not see the role the union plays in helping poor police officers not be properly reprimanded?

    Abolishing racism cannot be a goal because you cannot force people to act with the morality you believe is appropriate. You sound like the religious right when they sought to ban gay marriage. You shouldn’t make goals which are not achievable. It just creates political sides and nothing gets achieved. BLM vs ALM is the new version of pro choice and pro life. Neither side is fully wrong and neither side is fully right. But we define ourselves with one or the other. If you are pro life, you are sexist. If you are pro choice, you support baby murder. If you support ALM you are racist. If you support BLM, you are an anarchistic who supports rioting and looting. Do you see how this plays out? So long as the problem exists, you vote based on a side.

  9. #5529
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Amazon has no Unions and their better workers aren't getting paid any better than their bad ones. Wal-Mart has no Unions and their better workers aren't getting paid any better than their bad ones. I could give plenty of other examples.

    Historically, compensation actually goes down when you get rid of Unions. So the truth is, when you get rid of unions nobody ends up getting paid more $$$. Companies don't go "Hey, I saved $20,000 a year on this bad employee now that there's no Union, let me instead give that money to a good employee", they go "I now get an extra $20,000".
    I doubt if any of this is true. Amazon, like any other company, must have senior people who get paid more. There are probably opportunities for better people to move to better positions in other areas.

    Salaries go down when we get rid of unions??? Possibly true. Businesses will pay what a job is worth. Many in unions are overpaid for what they do because the unions got them raises. Get rid of the unions and pay scales will spread out to what they should be. Some (probably many) will make less. The better employees will make more. Seems sensible to me.

    There is absolutely no reason for a business to keep underpaying superior employees. No reason.

  10. #5530
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    There is an issue in inner cities-I understand the main focus in this thread is police brutality but there’s an overall issue with inner cities. If I had to name two of the biggest issues in inner city it would be crime/police brutality and education. Obviously there’s a lot of side issues but they almost all lead back to this issue. Also, a better education system would help lead to less crime and hopefully less police brutality.

    I stated just a few posts ago that especially police cannot violate a persons rights for whatever the reason, including racism. Do you believe the current system rightfully reprimands poor police officers, including racist ones? If so, why do you think these officers are not properly reprimanded? Do you not see the role the union plays in helping poor police officers not be properly reprimanded?

    Abolishing racism cannot be a goal because you cannot force people to act with the morality you believe is appropriate. You sound like the religious right when they sought to ban gay marriage. You shouldn’t make goals which are not achievable. It just creates political sides and nothing gets achieved. BLM vs ALM is the new version of pro choice and pro life. Neither side is fully wrong and neither side is fully right. But we define ourselves with one or the other. If you are pro life, you are sexist. If you are pro choice, you support baby murder. If you support ALM you are racist. If you support BLM, you are an anarchistic who supports rioting and looting. Do you see how this plays out? So long as the problem exists, you vote based on a side.
    First Bolded: You say that, but do you back it up? If I remember correctly, you defended Stop and Frisk, which is exactly what you're saying you're against.

    Second Bolded: Of course I see how the Union exacerbates this problem. But just because one Union is corrupt is not justification to get rid of all Unions anymore than saying because Enron was corrupt we should get rid of all corporations...

    Third Bolded: Except there is no real moral ambiguity on racism, everyone (except for the extreme fringe minority) believe it is wrong. So saying I'm trying to shove morality down your throat is saying you don't believe racism is wrong and I'm trying to shove that morality down your throat.

    Fourth Bolded: Why not? We have the goal of eradicating Rape and Child Sex Trafficking. Should we not have those goals because they are unachievable?

    Fifth Bolded: I do see how it plays out, but it's always going to play out this way so long as one side literally denies the validity of the other sides position. What compromise can there be when one side literally doesn't believe in the problem?

  11. #5531
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    I doubt if any of this is true. Amazon, like any other company, must have senior people who get paid more. There are probably opportunities for better people to move to better positions in other areas.

    Salaries go down when we get rid of unions??? Possibly true. Businesses will pay what a job is worth. Many in unions are overpaid for what they do because the unions got them raises. Get rid of the unions and pay scales will spread out to what they should be. Some (probably many) will make less. The better employees will make more. Seems sensible to me.

    There is absolutely no reason for a business to keep underpaying superior employees. No reason.
    This isn't just true. Companies will pay as little as possible to get the job done. Better employees does not mean they are good at negotiation. If someone doesn't ask for a raise are they going to give one?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #5532
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    I doubt if any of this is true. Amazon, like any other company, must have senior people who get paid more. There are probably opportunities for better people to move to better positions in other areas.

    Salaries go down when we get rid of unions??? Possibly true. Businesses will pay what a job is worth. Many in unions are overpaid for what they do because the unions got them raises. Get rid of the unions and pay scales will spread out to what they should be. Some (probably many) will make less. The better employees will make more. Seems sensible to me.

    There is absolutely no reason for a business to keep underpaying superior employees. No reason.
    Of course you doubt it's true, it goes against your fabricated worldview. Yes, Amazon has Senior people who get paid more. Glad to see you admitting the truth: you want to get rid of Unions so that the CEOs and upper management can get paid more. But the workers will get paid less (but that's OK with you).

    Businesses will not pay what a job is worth, they will pay as little as they can. Your argument is however little they pay is what the job is worth. Under your premise, the vast majority will make less, and the few upper management types will make more. That seems sensible to you because your end goal is to pay your employees as little as possible.

    You want to frame this as Unions keep superior employees from getting paid more, but that's not really true. What will happen is 99% will get paid less and 1% will get paid more. But of course you're OK with this so long as you're in the 1% (because **** the 99% am I right?)

  13. #5533
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    18,083
    There are way too many layers to be making the kind of general statements some of you are making regarding pay scales. I'd be surprised to find out how many have any real experience setting wages for a company's employees, with or without a union involved.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  14. #5534
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Of course you doubt it's true, it goes against your fabricated worldview. Yes, Amazon has Senior people who get paid more. Glad to see you admitting the truth: you want to get rid of Unions so that the CEOs and upper management can get paid more. But the workers will get paid less (but that's OK with you).

    Businesses will not pay what a job is worth, they will pay as little as they can. Your argument is however little they pay is what the job is worth. Under your premise, the vast majority will make less, and the few upper management types will make more. That seems sensible to you because your end goal is to pay your employees as little as possible.

    You want to frame this as Unions keep superior employees from getting paid more, but that's not really true. What will happen is 99% will get paid less and 1% will get paid more. But of course you're OK with this so long as you're in the 1% (because **** the 99% am I right?)
    I have a fabricated world view.

    Righty.

    Yours is just crystal clear.

    If a job is offered at a certain wage and the employer has little to no trouble getting people to take that wage, then that is what the job is worth.

    If you don't think it's worth $10 an hour to flip burgers …quit. Someone else will take the job because that is about what it is worth. You want to strike, as is your right, feel free to do so. Someone will take the job or they will automate you out (which is what is happening now), The way to make more $$$ is to make yourself worth more than the next guy (nah…way too much trouble). If your skills are that good, an employer will pay more for it. Just like if I want a better car (or suit, or shoes, or watch) I will pay more for it.

    And something to consider…open borders and letting in all these unskilled people depresses wages as much as anything else. People at the low end of the salary scale are competing with more and more people at the low end of the salary scale. But just keep letting 'me in. That's the nice thing to do.

  15. #5535
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    This isn't just true. Companies will pay as little as possible to get the job done. Better employees does not mean they are good at negotiation. If someone doesn't ask for a raise are they going to give one?
    And I a sure that there are lousy employees that are good at negotiating and manages to get themselves over paid.

    What is your real point here?? We have to take extra special care of poor negotiators??? What about the guy that can't write a decent memo??? Special care for him too??? Sloppy eaters in the lunchroom???What do we do about them??? And my pet peeve…the guy that wears a brown belt with black shoes. What do we do with them???

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •