In article , news1
@gmail22.com says...

H K wrote:
On 9/27/09 6:49 PM, JustWait wrote:


Love to see the bottom line and benefits of the union "managers" during
that period.. They are really no different than the corporate managers
they scream about, only there to suck dollars off the backs of hard
working men, so they don't have to...

So, Snotty, er, Scotty, how much did you inherit from you day's estate?
Enough for you to maintain your status as a non-working guy?


His "day's estate", professional writer? What the hell is that?

The rantings of a sick coward... Plonk him..

wf3h wrote in news:5fd30d3f-a0b3-4621-b9fc-
:

On Sep 26, 10:35*pm, Zombywoof wrote:


I've been an Exempt Employee all my adult life and have been at two
Companies while they went through the Unionization process. *

and i've worked for both unionized and non unionized companies.
unionized companies are healthier

So have I and, no, they aren't necessarily healthier.

In one Management was absolutely more then happy to see their workers
unionize because it allowed them to dump a ****-load of personnel
programs that weren't required by law, and costing them tons of money.
\\

things like vacations...won by union workers? you ready to give up
weekends and vacations?

I had an excellent vacation plan. No union. I had merit pay. No union.
I had mission pay when needed or was able to give to my employees. No
union. We had open communication on salaries and how they were given.

In the other management took what is more the normally perceived
action and attempted to dissuade the workers from organizing. *Of
course since they really can't prevent it they eventually develop

and since there's no penalty for firing workers engaged in unionizing,
that's what companies do.

Au contraire, mon ami. There are heavy penalties for doing that. Say
what you wish about unions but don't bull****.

then they cry when things like the EFCA are
proposed

ed a
"How can we best turn this to our advantage approach". *In very, very
high level Executive Management discussions it was decided to wait and
see what the end-result of collective bargaining was going to be on
the bottom line, usually an increase in hourly wages, then balance the
ledger with numerous & massive cuts in the existing quality of life
programs. *Once again the employees perceived a win, yeah were making
more money, but took it in the ass on all sorts of benefits & perks.
--

chuckle what i've seen is that unionized companies are actually
healthier since unions act as a check on unlimited exec power. unions
win benefits for both exempt and non-exempt employees.

While getting them screwed on other things.

non unionized companies screw their workers like they're $2 whores.

Some did.....most didn't. Of course, the unions did everything they
could to convince employees that was true. Looks like it worked with
you.

and the right, with their deep, abiding disgust at the very existence
of the middle class, hates unions

So do most people who believe in individual accountability and pay and
promotions via merit rather than longevity.



--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

On Sep 28, 11:02*am, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote in news:5fd30d3f-a0b3-4621-b9fc-
:

On Sep 26, 10:35*pm, Zombywoof wrote:

I've been an Exempt Employee all my adult life and have been at two
Companies while they went through the Unionization process. *

and i've worked for both unionized and non unionized companies.
unionized companies are healthier

So have I and, no, they aren't necessarily healthier.

not necessarily, but generally...




In one Management was absolutely more then happy to see their workers
unionize because it allowed them to dump a ****-load of personnel
programs that weren't required by law, and costing them tons of money.
\\

things like vacations...won by union workers? you ready to give up
weekends and vacations?

I had an excellent vacation plan. *No union. *I had merit pay. *No union. *

guess where 'vacations' came from. you think you'd have a vacation
without unions?

merit pay? why not read what w. edwards deming said about 'performance
reviews', etc....

I had mission pay when needed or was able to give to my employees. *No
union. *We had open communication on salaries and how they were given.

In the other management took what is more the normally perceived
action and attempted to dissuade the workers from organizing. *Of
course since they really can't prevent it they eventually develop

and since there's no penalty for firing workers engaged in unionizing,
that's what companies do.

Au contraire, mon ami. *There are heavy penalties for doing that. *Say
what you wish about unions but don't bull****.

uh...no. what 'heavy penalties' are there?

answer: none. no penalty at all, regardless of what the right wing
says.

the ONLY 'penalty' is that, after YEARS of expensive litigation, you
have to hire the person back and give them back pay.

wow. impressive.
--

chuckle what i've seen is that unionized companies are actually
healthier since unions act as a check on unlimited exec power. *unions
win benefits for both exempt and non-exempt employees.

While getting them screwed on other things.

ah. 'other things'. that's kind of like 'they say'...


non unionized companies screw their workers like they're $2 whores.

Some did.....most didn't. *Of course, the unions did everything they
could to convince employees that was true. *Looks like it worked with
you.

and you sucked down the management kool aid...you're just a bobble
head doll for management


and the right, with their deep, abiding disgust at the very existence
of the middle class, hates unions

So do most people who believe in individual accountability and pay and
promotions via merit rather than longevity.


fine. you go show me the data that companies actually hire and fire on
'merit'.

as deming said 'in god we trust, all others bring data'.

where's your data? so far all you've proven is that NON unionized
semiconductor houses are gone.

wf3h wrote in
:

On Sep 27, 12:55*pm, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote
innews:6517707f-a763-4394-ae23-bbb4cddf
:



thanks for proving my point. the semiconductor industry in the US
has collapsed. but IBM remains competitive due to its unionized
workforce

i agree that unionization is a wonderful thing. the NON unionized
companies in silicon valley have disappeared.

Yep, IBM in the US has laid off over 10,000 employees while moving
most of its semiconductor stuff overseas where the union is stronger.



So much for increased benefits by being unionized. *;(

really?

so why don't you get a job with a non-unionized plant?

oh. there aren't any

thanks again for proving why unions are great.

Nope, just proving that unions are like a fungus. *They pop up
virtuall
y
anywhere and will do whatever they have to to stay in power. *I have
ha
d
experience in union shops and non union shop and, believe me, merit
pay systems are much better.

no, they're no. since manufacturing has disappeared in the US and
virtually none of it was unionized, it's obvious unions had zip to do
with it. you admit IBM is unionized...and still in the US, while the
non unionized plants are gone

That was a company choice....and not a good one.

and that, to you, proves non unionized plants protect jobs? if that's
the case, where are the jobs?

If you were half as familiar with IBM as you insinuate, you would know
what a loss that was.


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

Zombywoof wrote in
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:55:32 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

wf3h wrote in
:

On Sep 26, 2:21Â*pm, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote
innews:58db059f-234f-44fc-bd7b-fe88428c
:



in fact, i've done ALOT of work with IBM over the last 20 years.
they're one of the most inventive and competitive companies in the
world. and their semiconductor plants are unionized

Not over that 20 years they weren't. Â*Unionization is quite a
recent
thing with IBM. Â*The first alliance was in 1999.

thanks for proving my point. the semiconductor industry in the US has
collapsed. but IBM remains competitive due to its unionized workforce

i agree that unionization is a wonderful thing. the NON unionized
companies in silicon valley have disappeared.


Now, in recent history,
in 2001, IBM cut 500 workers in Burlington, VT, 400 in Endicott, NY,
200 in East Fishkill, 180 in Rochester, NY, 150 in Freemont, CA and
75 in Raliegh, NC. Â*In 2002, over 9,000 jobs were cut in June of
2002
and another 14,000 in August of the same year. Â*Their was a mass
terminatio
n
at Lotus Professional Services (which is owned by IBM). Â*Half of
the
consultants working there were told to find new jobs withing LPS or
be let go. Â*The IBM retirement package now requires that new
retirees
will have to pay for medical benefits. Â*


again, thanks for proving my point. national semi in silicon valley
is
closed. non union. phillips in san antonio is closed. non union.
motorola is closed. non union. again and again it's the NON union
plants that have disappeared.

Yep, IBM in the US has laid off over 10,000 employees while moving most
of its semiconductor stuff overseas where the union is stronger.

So much for increased benefits by being unionized. Â*;(

really?

so why don't you get a job with a non-unionized plant?

oh. there aren't any

thanks again for proving why unions are great.

Nope, just proving that unions are like a fungus. They pop up
virtually
anywhere and will do whatever they have to to stay in power. I have
had
experience in union shops and non union shop and, believe me, merit pay
systems are much better.

If you have merit, then yes. If all you do is basically show up every
day, then no. All-in-all it is a mindset paradigm.

It is one of the reasons that most public sector employees are
perceived as not doing dick (The old 50 government workers & 50
Lesbians in one room joke). Since excellence will not lead to a pay
increase, promotion, or any other type of personal reward most do not
bother. In those organizations there is absolutely no reason to excel
since excellence is not rewarded.

That is particularly true in union shops.


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

wf3h wrote in news:26abc339-e24b-42c6-816c-
:

On Sep 27, 5:15*pm, Zombywoof wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:55:32 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"





Nope, just proving that unions are like a fungus. *They pop up
virtual
ly
anywhere and will do whatever they have to to stay in power. *I have
h
ad
experience in union shops and non union shop and, believe me, merit
pay
systems are much better.

If you have merit, then yes. *If all you do is basically show up every
day, then no. *All-in-all it is a mindset paradigm. *

i love the rightwing mythology of 'merit' based employment. your boss
thinks you're a threat to him? you're gone. smarter than he is? you're
gone. more personality? you're gone. doesn't like your car? you're
gone.

I worked in a merit pay company for thirty years. Never had any of those
problems nor did I with my pay. It seems that if you work and do good
you get rewarded.

this myth that the right wing proposes....companies employ on the
basis of 'merit' is laughable. but i suppose it enables them to sleep
at night, just like a little kid who has his security blanket and
sucks his thumb

When I was in management, as in most places, I had both eagles and
turkeys. One of my focuses was to feed my eagles and starve my turkeys.
If someone left who was unhappy with his pay, it damn sure wasn't an
eagle.

It is one of the reasons that most public sector employees are
perceived as not doing dick (The old 50 government workers & 50
Lesbians in one room joke). *Since excellence will not lead to a pay
increase, promotion, or any other type of personal reward most do not
bother. *In those organizations there is absolutely no reason to excel
since excellence is not rewarded.

and, i suppose, it's a reason why america is run by lawyers and
accountants rather than people who work for a living

by the way...how'd this myth of 'merit' work out for lehman brothers
over the last year?

Can't address it, didn't work. BTW, neither did you.


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

wf3h wrote in news:32aca716-d62a-4846-9cae-
:

On Sep 27, 6:49*pm, JustWait wrote:


So much for increased benefits by being unionized. *;(

Love to see the bottom line and benefits of the union "managers"
during
that period.. They are really no different than the corporate managers
they scream about, only there to suck dollars off the backs of hard
working men, so they don't have to...-

of course, they don't rape a 401K like the managers do. they don't ask
for bailouts like managers do. they don't preach how god made them
superior because they're rich like managers do.

In an earlier post I mentioned eagles and turkeys. It is rather easy to
see which you were.


'justwait' seems to think that if the rich steal from you, that's OK.
god forbid the middle class even begin to question authority. that's
just not permitted.




--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams

On Sep 28, 11:32*am, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote :



no, they're no. since manufacturing has disappeared in the US and
virtually none of it was unionized, it's obvious unions had zip to do
with it. *you admit IBM is *unionized...and still in the US, while the
non unionized plants are gone

That was a company choice....and not a good one.

oh. i see how this works. you claim unions destroy business. proof of
that is

1. non unionized plants are closed
2. unionized plants are still in production but you think they
shouldn't be because that disproves your view

gee. an ironclad argument


and that, to you, proves non unionized plants protect jobs? if that's
the case, where are the jobs?

If you were half as familiar with IBM as you insinuate, you would know
what a loss that was.

and if you knew logic, you'd see how ridiculous your position is


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 28, 11:33*am, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
Zombywoof wrote innews

It is one of the reasons that most public sector employees are
perceived as not doing dick (The old 50 government workers & 50
Lesbians in one room joke). *Since excellence will not lead to a pay
increase, promotion, or any other type of personal reward most do not
bother. *In those organizations there is absolutely no reason to excel
since excellence is not rewarded.

That is particularly true in union shops.


as opposed to the wonderful things wall street has done for the middle
class over the last year.

Bama Brian wrote in news:h9p9rj$6j1$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

As to IBM, well, that company damn near shot itself to death twenty
years back. Fortunately for it, its management learned early that they
were NOT competitive in manufacturing - which is why they got out of
the
mainframe biz early, and why they quit the PC market even while it was
still hot.

IBM got into trouble for many reasons. One was marketing.....sales reps
felt they had to work just as hard to sell 10 PCs as they did to sell a
370 or a pair of AS400s. IBM confused the public with its PS2 marketing
as the customer base associated it with a non standard proprietaty
architecture (which it was) rather than the industry standard available
in clones. OS2 (a much superior op system to DOS/Windows) was associated
by marketing with PS2 so that folks didn't realize OS2 would also run on
all clones.

I am not sure what you mean by getting out of the mainframe biz early
means. IBM WAS the mainframe industry until the 80s when they didn't
properly respond to Sun and some others. They left UNIVAC and CDC in the
dust.



--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."

President John Adams