Am I just being prickily?

originally posted by: seasonal
I see these situations many times a week. I usually bite my tongue because I do not want to constantly be interrupting the general public's bliss. But rarely do I see bliss, I usually see a square peg going through a round hole. And the pegs seem to dazzle those around me but what is tend to see BS.

Do you guys have this issue or is it just me?

i have this issue as well, although i think we come at from different angles. i frequently ask myself, do i want to pick this battle, is it worth it, will it make a difference in the long run? it's tiresome to always be pissing in someone's cheerios, even if those cheerios badly want some pissing...

a reply to: fiverx313

Do you find yourself wishing you were easily amused sometimes?

I had a friend (who passed away) that didn't seem to have a care and floated though life with little critical thinking. Not in a bad or gullible way, but in a lite hearted way that seemed from the outside easier.

Perhaps I am in a phase and will "grow" out of it. And I avoid many pissing in cornflakes as well, just the one conversation was a glaring example of my stellar tact and style.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: fiverx313

Do you find yourself wishing you were easily amused sometimes?

yes... i've often wanted to be able to put my brain into a lower gear. i'm lucky that my partner and i are usually more or less on the same page, so i don't end up in too many conversational conundrums at home.

I had a friend (who passed away) that didn't seem to have a care and floated though life with little critical thinking. Not in a bad or gullible way, but in a lite hearted way that seemed from the outside easier.

Perhaps I am in a phase and will "grow" out of it. And I avoid many pissing in cornflakes as well, just the one conversation was a glaring example of my stellar tact and style.

could be a phase, who knows. i try to moderate my impulse to always be right and have everyone know it - with mixed results at times. maybe that's part of being more light-hearted about it.

a reply to: seasonal

Do CEO's work without contracts?

Probably not, and neither do the majority of wage earners in America. Everybody from McDonalds to Boeing and everybody in between signs a contract of employment whether they earn minimum wage or collect six figure salaries with bonus. So... yea. Do we need thugs to explain it to them for lack of literacy, or lack of balls?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Your opinions of unions sounds like it is from a 1970's movie.

I worked for the teamsters/Coke for 6 months and no thugs came and did anything.

Is there abuse with a union? Yep

Is there abuse with out? Yep and lower wages/benefits

.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The next step is cut the mafiaosos unions from standing between you and your employer pretending to work in your interests, but really just skimming off most of the benefits they allege to bring you in expensive dues.

I'm proud to pay my union dues. I affords me health care, a retirement, recourse if ever hurt on the job, an attorney when scumbag production companies try to screw us out of our wages, and a brotherhood that watches eachothers back.
I had to wait 9 years till I got paid for "young guns" but SAG finally got our pay plus interest.
Plus I get in Movies free with my union card and I think most of our union bosses are Jewish.

Union proud, Union Strong...

www.sagaftra.org...

www.iatse.net...

a reply to: olaru12

Agreed.

Unions keep people honest. Look at all the non union manufacturing jobs that have left the country in just the last 8 years during Obama's admin. Unions have nothing to do with these jobs going to third world countries where exploitation is a HUGE problem.

The 3rd world countries are being exploited along with the environment. Unions stop this.

I simply respectfully disagree with the necessity of unions. We do not live in the early 1900's where your likelihood of death on the job from exploitation was common and expected. Legislation after legislation has brought the protections necessary that unions are obsolete. What you fail to see is, Unions will be on the chopping block coming up soon. There will be legislation targeting them. Could be 2018, or 2019. Fact is, pretty much any corporate job in America gets you health care and a retirement package, and most of them do not require a union. Just sane stable people that can stick around long enough to actually benefit from their benefits.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Unions are not there in most part to keep a belt from sheering off a finger.
They are there to collectively bargain with a large multi national multi-billion dollar conglomerate corporation that employs thousands. They have 2 entire departments in place to insure they get what they want in an employee.
I am under the belief it is not a bad idea to have some one in the persons corner when they are "working" with said corps.
Look at where pay has gone since the late 1970's-no where. The middle class has had very little in the way of cost of living raises. That coincides with the decline of unions.

a reply to: seasonal
Ok, here is the thing. Some of those multi-billion dollar corporations only require low wage unskilled labor. Retail sales and food service as an example. Those people are paid exactly what they are worth for their unskilled labor that can easily be replaced with the next unemployed teenager, struggling parent, or junkie/drunk. Like, I feel for the struggling parent I do, I have been one. But what these types of job require are the mental equivalent of turning knobs back and forth. Most of those jobs take about one to three weeks to master the skills, assuming the person is not such an idiot that they quit before they learn how to read the data on a product label on a store shelf.

The other type of multi billion dollar corporation jobs are the very high skilled jobs like engineers for DuPont, Honeywell, ExxonMobile or high risk professions like flying planes or hazardous site cleanups or some type of IT profession. From what I know, the very credentials even required to acquire such a profession means that not only did the individual not waste their youth and actually focused on getting an education, but have acquired advanced skills the general public does not possess. Right off the bat, many of them are getting paid big money solely on their abilities by default and need no such unions to represent them. They know what their skills are worth, they willingly accept the salaries offered or negotiate on their own terms.

Those two types of corps make up most of the big billionaire types. At what point is a union needed in there? retail and food service workers get exactly what they are worth. You or I do not need a degree to point to an aisle or slap some automated 30 second burger between two buns. Neither do we need thugs to force the company to pay cattle more than they are worth. Get an education, or become an entrepreneur. That simple. Our personal choices in life are what land people where they work. That is not the corporations fault, or the consumers who will have to pay an inflated price for their products and services. That lands solely on the individuals in question.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

a reply to: seasonal
Ok, here is the thing. Some of those multi-billion dollar corporations only require low wage unskilled labor. Retail sales and food service as an example. Those people are paid exactly what they are worth for their unskilled labor that can easily be replaced with the next unemployed teenager, struggling parent, or junkie/drunk. Like, I feel for the struggling parent I do, I have been one. But what these types of job require are the mental equivalent of turning knobs back and forth. Most of those jobs take about one to three weeks to master the skills, assuming the person is not such an idiot that they quit before they learn how to read the data on a product label on a store shelf.

The other type of multi billion dollar corporation jobs are the very high skilled jobs like engineers for DuPont, Honeywell, ExxonMobile or high risk professions like flying planes or hazardous site cleanups or some type of IT profession. From what I know, the very credentials even required to acquire such a profession means that not only did the individual not waste their youth and actually focused on getting an education, but have acquired advanced skills the general public does not possess. Right off the bat, many of them are getting paid big money solely on their abilities by default and need no such unions to represent them. They know what their skills are worth, they willingly accept the salaries offered or negotiate on their own terms.

Those two types of corps make up most of the big billionaire types. At what point is a union needed in there? retail and food service workers get exactly what they are worth. You or I do not need a degree to point to an aisle or slap some automated 30 second burger between two buns. Neither do we need thugs to force the company to pay cattle more than they are worth. Get an education, or become an entrepreneur. That simple. Our personal choices in life are what land people where they work. That is not the corporations fault, or the consumers who will have to pay an inflated price for their products and services. That lands solely on the individuals in question.

Seems our minds are made up.


.

a reply to: seasonal
So it seems. It was a fun discussion though either way.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The next step is cut the mafiaosos unions from standing between you and your employer pretending to work in your interests, but really just skimming off most of the benefits they allege to bring you in expensive dues.

The Unions are now mostly political. Once upon a time they were set up for the employees. Now , they are set up to garner political favor in return for donating to their Party.

In other words : I dang well agree.

originally posted by: seasonal
But we continued with the conversation, and the fact that another large corp is "giving" $2000 bonuses to their employees because of the tax cuts. My response is that if the tax cuts are to make American corporations more competitive why give anyone a bonus? Giving bonuses will make US corporation less competitive.

Bonus is more effective than salary.

Bonus is given for performance, and is not guaranteed.

Salary is guarantteed, so even if the employee isn't performing, he still gets his salary.

People don't actually work for salary.

They'll work for bonus though.

People come to work for salary, but the bonus is what motivates them to deliver "performance".

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yes I always enjoy a good conversation. There is always room to see another person's point of view.

People bandy about the "unions" as if they are satan incarnate but what you don't want to recognise is the "unions" are the workers, are the people, they are not some other entity to blame for bad union leaders choices. Without unions from the 1950s they got your rights and protections from oppressive employers and in doing so got protection for all non union people and that includes higher wages.
As for the analogy of top paid people being paid top money because they are worth it is BS. The reason is the majority of the time there is a shortage of any said profession therefore allowing the employee to have a better bargaining chip to get better wages.
If an employee gets $15 an hour for whatever and the company makes vast profits it ought to pay its employees more money.
I think the majority of you should go back to school and really learn how a successful economy and with it a successful country works. It ain't through multimillionaires or company bosses (which are in the minority) it's through the only thing you don't seem to grasp. It's through the mass of a countries workers having a decent amount of disposable income and that includes burger flippers. And that means paying the majority more money and it can't be done by juggling any tax figures but FORCING the companies to pay better pay.

a reply to: crayzeed

100% agree.

Unions are blamed for the loss of manufacturing jobs that were no unionized.

And for some reason people are against people making a living wage. This means that the tax payers will not have to subsidize the poorly paid emplyee's min wage check with food stamps-mediaid-bridge cards......

It is a very conservative idea to get people off the public dole. And it is a very conservative idea to back corps that are use welfare as a supplement to their piss poor pay. Conservatives don't think things through completely.

it`s good that some people are getting trickled down on with raises and bonuses which is better than what they got during the last administration.

I reckon trickle down is like rain, when it rains in Kansas not everyone in the U.S. is going to get wet or get as much rain as they would like.just because you might not be getting wet doesn`t mean the people that are getting shouldn`t appreciate getting trickled down on.

a reply to: bluechevytree


Trickle down has yet to really raise all boats.