British Airways have to cancel flights - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-13-2005, 08:01 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


No, but it does seem a little silly to say workers are being manipulated because their union leader earns a higher wage than they do when you consider that if they work for a corporation like Microsoft or Nike the CEO of that company is earning a salary which is many, many times higher than that of a union leader. Nobody seems to think workers are being manipulated because BA bosses earn salaries of several million pounds per year, but they're quick to label it manipulation when a union leader earns a salary of around £80,000 per year.

The workers productivity is directly funding the CEOs huge salary, just as the workers union dues are funding the union leaders salary.

I don't think Microsoft or Nike have a single Union on the property. Unless there are Unions for nine year-old malaysian children (Nike)?

I still don't get your arguments. I am going to be the devil's advocate here. Why SHOULDN'T CEOs get more pay? The are the ones in charge of the whole company...one single action by them ( something as simple as a stupid statement) could send a stock price down and a company into bankruptcy. Or, even worse...into shutting down completely.
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 08:13 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 01:16 PM

I don't mind if people who have a large responsibility, work hard and do a good job get a large salary. However what I don't like is when CEO's screw the company over to make some fast profits out of their temporarily rising stocks and with a large sum of money move on to the next company where they intend on doing the same. Let's be fair, it isn't unheard of when the income of CEO's isn't defined by their use for the companies but by being a member of the Old Boys network who like giving eachother pay rises.

On the subject of unions: When used well, unions and employers could work together to make the workplace safer, to improve the overall working circumstances and increase productivity (I've seen that happen). I still applaud the concept of Unions, just like I applaud the concept of companies and I don't intend to let the bad apples change my mind on either of them.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 08:15 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Could not agree more with Dr. Teeth!

Overtime, Unions HAVE improved safety in the workplace, led to a better way of life, as well as living salaries for both union members AND salaried workers.

What frustrates me is the fact that people often forget that unions are businesses too. I feel they should be fighting for the individuals in their membership they should fight for, but also understand what the market (or a business) can financially take. I see some unions fighting to keep membership numbers, just so they do not lose the "dues" (income). Unions are business partners with the company they are associated with...they should fight to protect workers rights, knowing that the comanpy's bottom line also has to work.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 01:39 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Unions have improved working conditions and in general helped workers over the years. They're human instiitutions and aren't perfect, but when they function the way they're meant to they're a force for good.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 01:44 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
I still don't get your arguments. I am going to be the devil's advocate here. Why SHOULDN'T CEOs get more pay? The are the ones in charge of the whole company...one single action by them ( something as simple as a stupid statement) could send a stock price down and a company into bankruptcy. Or, even worse...into shutting down completely.
I didn't argue that CEOs shouldn't receive high salaries (although that might be something I'd argue at some point) but rather that it seems silly to condemn union officials for receiving a higher salary than the average worker while ignoring the fact that workers are also funding their CEOs salary which will not only be higher than the average workers salary, but also considerably higher than the average union leader salary.

My argument is basically that workers fund their CEOs salary through their productivity, so if we're going to complain that unions are fleecing their members then we should also complain that CEOs are fleecing their workers.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 01:47 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
Unions are business partners with the company they are associated with...they should fight to protect workers rights, knowing that the comanpy's bottom line also has to work.
I don't think it's the job of a union to act as a business partner to the companies its members are employed by. A union's job is to protect its members, whether that involves ensuring their working conditions are safe, ensuring that they receive fair pay for their work and ensuring they aren't discriminated against or otherwise badly treated.

Obviously unions need to liase with companies which employ their members, but they shouldn't be seen as doing the company's work for it. They're there to protect their members, not to make CEOs lives easier.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:23 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Fizz...have you worked in an Unionized environment? Not to insult your knowledge on the subject, but your views seem to lack inside knowledge...knowledge coming from either a union leadership or a roll in management position that deals with an union workforce.

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
I don't think it's the job of a union to act as a business partner to the companies its members are employed by. A union's job is to protect its members, whether that involves ensuring their working conditions are safe, ensuring that they receive fair pay for their work and ensuring they aren't discriminated against or otherwise badly treated.

Obviously unions need to liase with companies which employ their members, but they shouldn't be seen as doing the company's work for it. They're there to protect their members, not to make CEOs lives easier.
No where did I say Unions were there to make a CEOs life easier.

BUT, if there is no company...there is no union workforce. Therefor, the Union and company needs to be working partners in the success of a company. If you do not understand this, you do not understand basic business concepts.

Many of the items you have listed here are things NOW protected by labor laws. Sure, the Bush admnistration is not likely to help work conditions...but there are laws against discrimination that protects employees. As for fair pay...companies can pay employees whatever they want...the problem is, in order to find quality employees, you have to pay a living wage.

In today's business climate, Unions (at least in the U.S.) are losing relevance. Look at the problems that the AFL-CIO is having.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:33 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
My argument is basically that workers fund their CEOs salary through their productivity, so if we're going to complain that unions are fleecing their members then we should also complain that CEOs are fleecing their workers.
Workers FUND their CEOs. So, CEOs should do ALL the work in the company? The CEOs are directing the companies towards success. They report to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors report to shareholders. It is the CEOs job to not only maintain productivity, but also make sure shareholders are happy.

Business is much more complex than "workers working to pay CEOs salaries."

In today's environment, where there are laws against labor practices and discrimination, and jobs are being outsourced left and right (due to cheaper labor in other countries), labor groups are losudy clout.

If you want to focus on a problem...let's talk about the focus on making the shareholder happy and the growing disparity (spelling?) of the haves and have-nots that our governments are allowing. THIS has more to do with the government than labor unions vs. CEOs.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:33 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
Fizz...have you worked in an Unionized environment? Not to insult your knowledge on the subject, but your views seem to lack inside knowledge...knowledge coming from either a union leadership or a roll in management position that deals with an union workforce.
I've worked in several unionised workplaces and I've also met with a lot of union members and officials through working on political campaigns. I probably have more inside knowledge of unions than your average guy on the street. Although I'm not sure quite what "inside knowledge" has to do with making a comparison between union leaders salaries and CEOs salaries.


Quote:
BUT, if there is no company...there is no union workforce. Therefor, the Union and company needs to be working partners in the success of a company. If you do not understand this, you do not understand basic business concepts.
Nobody would dispute that it's in the union's interest for a company to be successful. My point, however, is that the union's primary purpose is to defend its members interests, not to help a CEO to increase his company's profitability (particularly when you consider that often increases in profitability are due to poor treatment of workers).

Quote:
Many of the items you have listed here are things NOW protected by labor laws. Sure, the Bush admnistration is not likely to help work conditions...but there are laws against discrimination that protects employees. As for fair pay...companies can pay employees whatever they want...the problem is, in order to find quality employees, you have to pay a living wage.
I'm not from the US so I'm not really qualified to comment on US employment legislation. However, I can say that in the UK we have legislation which is designed to protect workers from discrimination and yet every year there are thousands of cases in which workers are discriminated against and need the support of their union in order to fight against the discrimination. On the subject of fair pay - you don't have a minimum wage in the US?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:38 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
my view...minimum wage hardly pays for lunch and the ride to work...nevermind rent, child care, healthcare...etc. etc.

This is NOT a CEO vs. Union issue any longer...it deals with our govenment and the fact we are deleting the middle class...and creating a bigger division between upper-class and lower-class.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:39 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
Business is much more complex than "workers working to pay CEOs salaries."
But the fact remains that without workers, CEOs wouldn't have a company, much less a salary. All I'm saying is that it seems ironic that people are outraged that union dues pay for a union leader to draw a salary which is higher than that of the workers s/he represents, but for the same people to have no problem with a CEO drawing a salary which is more than a thousand times greater than that of a worker.

Quote:
In today's environment, where there are laws against labor practices and discrimination, and jobs are being outsourced left and right (due to cheaper labor in other countries), labor groups are losudy clout.
I'm not quite sure what you're calling labour groups. (I'm honestly not being awkward or trying to pick on spelling, I just genuinely can't figure it out - are you saying they're losing their clout or something else?)

And as I pointed out above, legislation against discrmination or against unsafe working practices does not always ensure that discrimination or dangerous working practices are eliminated. Unions play an important role in seeing that this legislation is implemented and adhered to, and in supporting workers who are unfairly treated despite the introduction of legislation designed to prevent that treatment.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:40 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
my view...minimum wage hardly pays for lunch and the ride to work...nevermind rent, child care, healthcare...etc. etc.

This is NOT a CEO vs. Union issue any longer...it deals with our govenment and the fact we are deleting the middle class...and creating a bigger division between upper-class and lower-class.
What is the US minimum wage? I don't doubt it's far too low -- the UK one is too.

And I completely agre with the point you're making in this post.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:56 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
But the fact remains that without workers, CEOs wouldn't have a company, much less a salary. All I'm saying is that it seems ironic that people are outraged that union dues pay for a union leader to draw a salary which is higher than that of the workers s/he represents, but for the same people to have no problem with a CEO drawing a salary which is more than a thousand times greater than that of a worker.
I would say 99% of the jobs (and in turn, people) are replaceable these days. IF a company wants to survive...it will find a way. Want an example?

US Airways here in the states are in banktrupcy. Within banktrupcy, a judge forced new contracts on the company's labor groups (Unoins...hopefully that answers your question). This was after they sent the pensions of all employees off to the government (were the employees will get LESS money than if the company was able to maintain the pension). After the union was forced by a judge to vote on a contract (with less pay and lesser work rules), the company turned around and laid off most of the ground handlers and out-sourced the jobs to ground handling company that pays the employees around $9 an hour. The Union members were getting paid $24 an hour.

Guess who still has a job? The CEO. Did customers stop buying tickets on US Airways? Nope.

So, I ask again...what are the Union Leaders doing with these union dues if they cannot even save jobs anymore? Why should these union leaders take additional money out of the workers pay if they have little or no control over things anymore.

Should I also bring up a story about the UNION MEMBER who was harrassing other Union members...and when the company (mine) went to fire him...it took the company THREE union hearings/arbitrations (where fellow union "brothers/sisters" testified against him) to have him removed from the company. This was the UNION supporting a Union Brother who was discriminating against fellow union folks, and then received union support.

Now that he has been fired, he is still sending "unsigned letters" to his former fellow union brothers...that if there was a way to prove it was him...would get him arrested for harrassment.

Again...WHAT are Union dues going to now?
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 04:57 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 07:16 AM
my spelling SUCKS.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 08-13-2005, 05:02 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener
(Unoins...hopefully that answers your question).
lol, no I realised you call unions labour groups, but you wrote

Quote:
In today's environment, where there are laws against labor practices and discrimination, and jobs are being outsourced left and right (due to cheaper labor in other countries), labor groups are losudy clout.
and I couldn't figure out what "losudy clout" was supposed to mean - was it "losing their clout" or something else?

Quote:
Guess who still has a job? The CEO. Did customers stop buying tickets on US Airways? Nope.
What's your point? That a CEO is more powerful than workers - of course s/he is! That's exactly I believe in having unions to represent workers in order to lead to a slightly more reasonable balance of power between CEOs and workers.

And with respect, you can cite examples of union members who behave inappropriately but that isn't an argument against unions in general. I could cite you twenty examples of people I know who have been badly treated at work, whether through discrimination, being made to work in dangerous conditions or being expected to work unreasonable hours. However, I wouldn't bother doing that since it's no more than anecdotal evidence, just like your story about a union leader is.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com