Why is it communist/leftist to try and fight for better wages? Wanting more capital is leftist??

Assume you work for Burger King. In the news you realize that Burger King consistently has far better earnings than say, Taco Bell. However you wouldnt know, the working conditions are at both franchises the same and at both you get the same minimum wage.

The workers decide they want some of that action and organize a union and then go on strike to see how much the company is willing to increase their cost in wages, when faced with the alternative of remaining inoperable indefenitly and as a consequence going out of buisness.

Some people would decry that as leftist and what not. How is that leftist? If the company can give you the option to take minimum wage or go live under a bridge, shouldnt workers organize themselves and push for higher wages, by confronting the company with the possibility of bankruptcy?

reply to post by Cassius666
If the communists and leftists were truly for the worker, then they'd fight for less taxes taken from the worker.

But they aren't. They could give a damn. They want power. They want larger government.

I agree with beezzer it is about power, it is also about money. No matter what is said, no matter what is promised, celebrated or preached, it always comes down to power and money. Ghandi was the only leader I know of with a politiical agenda who was not about either.


k guess that is not particularly relevant, heh. Doing what is needed to secure fair wages or safe working conditions is the american way! So not leftist. Not any ist really.

reply to post by Cassius666


Its an interesting Avatar you have when you consider that this man ...... fired the air traffic controllers on strike in 1981. Believed to be a seminal event for the legal right of private employers.


.........

To your question.

I think that workers need all the leverage they can get in organising the best deal for selling their labour. Corporations have become so behemoth and well resourced...its hardly a level playing field. But trade unions can get a little power hungry and corrupt too given enough time.

As it's already been said, Every living example of a communist/Leftest society, has resulted in big goverment, and the loss of personal freedoms.

With Government spending out of control till the point said government simply collapses.

Years ago I got into a fight with a liberal who argued tooth and nail that Communism was the way to go. When I offered the examples of the Soviet Union and China, he just choose to ignore them as not being "true" Communist Societies.

It's very easy to fight and argue your personal veiw with you choose to deny all the facts all day long...

yes Democracy has some serious flaws, but it really beats the hell out of everything else. We seriously need to STOP our goverment from expanding and controlling everything.

Your job at Taco bell wouldnt suck so bad if the government didnt spend us into oblivion and depreciate the dollar so much.

taco bell is a bad example, but say a grocery store. In the 70's working in a grocery store was Considered good money. So much so that in some cases you had to know somebody to get a job there.

reply to post by Cassius666


In some cases unions promote safer working conditions, higher productivity, craftsmanship, etc. In most cases I think unions become parasites that wreck whole industries. The only area where unions are thriving is for government workers because productivity is irrelevant.

It would be good if the fast food workers organized because Americans would eat healthier due to the higher prices.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
I think that workers need all the leverage they can get in organising the best deal for selling their labour. Corporations have become so behemoth and well resourced...its hardly a level playing field. But trade unions can get a little power hungry and corrupt too given enough time.

Amen, I think government anti-trust laws need to apply to labor. It would be better if there were three automakers negotiating with three competing unions. It isn't fair to have hundreds of thousands of individual autoworkers but it also isn't fair to have a monopoly on labor.

When you sign a job contract you accept to deliver X work in exchange for Y purchasing power. It is only legitimate to revise the contract if the work definition changes and/or the purchasing power of the worker changes.

Now if workers just ask for a raise with noprevious change in X or Y it's tantamount to taking over the company.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cassius666

 

If the communists and leftists were truly for the worker, then they'd fight for less taxes taken from the worker.

But they aren't. They could give a damn. They want power. They want larger government.

Yes Beezer. Union members want power and more government. It's not that they want proper benefits and a proper wage for a hard days work at all. They want power, glory and all your money.

Do you really believe that? Really?

Originally posted by Brasov
When you sign a job contract you accept to deliver X work in exchange for Y purchasing power. It is only legitimate to revise the contract if the work definition changes and/or the purchasing power of the worker changes.

Now if workers just ask for a raise with noprevious change in X or Y it's tantamount to taking over the company.

X? Y? Huh?

WELL, A, B, and C the American worker is getting no increase in wages while everything goes up and the big-shots getting HUGE BONUSES and HUGE raises while swimming in tons of cash from exploiting the American worker.

If wages kept up with inflation since the 60's, minimum wage should be $18/hr. So you can "C" that "I" and "U" (the common worker I mean) is being "F'd".

So "U" & "I" the common American worker "B" "F'd" by some big-shots despite the "X" and "Y" stuff.

Our system of capitalism could work fine if we fix the BS of it. Many folks are tired of being "F'd" already and something has got to change for "A" thru "Z".

reply to post by Cassius666


Unions and such are not .. "leftist" per se.. it just so happens that most Unions are dominated by Leftist. A union can, and usually is, a very good thing. Protects workers from poor working conditions, unreasonable hours and benefits.

The Unions that we hear about on TV, such as the UAW are massive entities that while they represent the workers also mostly represent themselves. They rake in billions of dollars (from workers ironically) and donate to political causes (mostly Democratic causes) to secure government support and contracts. The downside to these massive Unions is that they lower corporate earnings so far that they end up moving production overseas. For example.. Ford cannot fight it's UAW union .. the Union is to powerful. So instead of cutting benefits or renegotiating .. they simply close factories and open them in Mexico. No UAW there. Happens all the time.. massive unions destroying the economy.

Lesson is .. Small unions = good. Large union = bad. They are self defeating (for the workers)

Originally posted by spinalremain

Yes Beezer. Union members want power and more government. It's not that they want proper benefits and a proper wage for a hard days work at all. They want power, glory and all your money.

Do you really believe that? Really?

Sorry. Fail on your part. What union members want is irrelavent. It's what union leaders want in conjunction with their democrat masters that's at issue.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

WELL, A, B, and C the American worker is getting no increase in wages while everything goes up and the big-shots getting HUGE BONUSES and HUGE raises while swimming in tons of cash from exploiting the American worker.

So you guys can travel 9,000 Km to commit genocide in some stone-age country but can't raise the balls to challenge your employers?

Perhaps fluoride and food preservatives are to blame for such low testosterone.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Assume you work for Burger King. In the news you realize that Burger King consistently has far better earnings than say, Taco Bell. However you wouldnt know, the working conditions are at both franchises the same and at both you get the same minimum wage.

The workers decide they want some of that action and organize a union and then go on strike to see how much the company is willing to increase their cost in wages, when faced with the alternative of remaining inoperable indefenitly and as a consequence going out of buisness.

Some people would decry that as leftist and what not. How is that leftist? If the company can give you the option to take minimum wage or go live under a bridge, shouldnt workers organize themselves and push for higher wages, by confronting the company with the possibility of bankruptcy?

It's the name of the left right paradigm, the lefties want to reach heaven by serving the pee-ons
interests first and the modern right seems to think that heaven is achieved by serving the
employers. That is what I see at least, in all of the recent policy arguments you will see a position
that gives the pee-ons more benefit and the counter argument that seeks a solution by giving the
control to the people who own and manufacture the private systems and employ the pee ons.

I think the modern version of conservatism is a perversion of what it once was, ushered in by the
the sound bite tag lines of the Reagan Thatcher era. Unfortunately the powers that control popular
dissent in this country have decided that American politics is easiest to control by creating polar
opposites in the right and left. That is why American conservatives are far more anti worker than
other western conservative party lines. A British Tory or a German righty would likely find the idea
of dismantling that social "safety" very extreme. So I think it is only a lefty idea if you hold it up to
the light of modern American politics and the polar thought model that is cultivated in the media.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spinalremain

Yes Beezer. Union members want power and more government. It's not that they want proper benefits and a proper wage for a hard days work at all. They want power, glory and all your money.

Do you really believe that? Really?

Sorry. Fail on your part. What union members want is irrelavent. It's what union leaders want in conjunction with their democrat masters that's at issue.

I failed? Dam.

What union are you affiliated with that you know these leaders and exactly what they want? I'm just curious. You often speak about union this and union that. How much first hand experience do you have?

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spinalremain

Yes Beezer. Union members want power and more government. It's not that they want proper benefits and a proper wage for a hard days work at all. They want power, glory and all your money.

Do you really believe that? Really?

Sorry. Fail on your part. What union members want is irrelavent. It's what union leaders want in conjunction with their democrat masters that's at issue.

Thats the game here... He doesn't have to give any fricking specifics, he just has to be critical of unions,
the media has already done the leg work of painting them as a threat to "conservative virtues". Screw
looking at the validity of unions with a case by case bias, it is full steam ignorance that is a sure fire way
to ensure blind disapproval for any consideration that can be had.

All Muslims are terrorists, All unions are bad, All unemployed people are lazy, All public schools are evil,
All liberals want larger government, All people who are for smaller military are anti Military...

edit on 14-1-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by cloudyday
reply to post by Cassius666

 

In some cases unions promote safer working conditions, higher productivity, craftsmanship, etc. In most cases I think unions become parasites that wreck whole industries. The only area where unions are thriving is for government workers because productivity is irrelevant.

It would be good if the fast food workers organized because Americans would eat healthier due to the higher prices.

I know I would eat healthier. With Burger King then making a delicious $7.00 burger, instead of the delicious $3.00 burger now, I'd stop eating them and make my own on my grill.

/TOA

reply to post by Cassius666


I don't know I apply to these jobs and ask for 10.50 an hour...they have the right to not call me, or they have a right to negotiate, I have the right to tell them to stick their job too, if they want to pay me too low.
Oh yeah but that's another "leftist" thing, refusing to take crappy pay and waiting until someone actually will pay you what you are worth...
I'd rather have not two pennies to rub together than lower myself to working at Burger King or Taco Bell...I guess I just have an "entitlement" issue.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I don't know I apply to these jobs and ask for 10.50 an hour...they have the right to not call me, or they have a right to negotiate, I have the right to tell them to stick their job too, if they want to pay me too low.
Oh yeah but that's another "leftist" thing, refusing to take crappy pay and waiting until someone actually will pay you what you are worth...

I'd rather have not two pennies to rub together than lower myself to working at Burger King or Taco Bell...I guess I just have an "entitlement" issue.

edit on 14-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: holy BEEP gd

Yes, you do. And the first step is admitting you have a problem. Assuming you're unemployed because you refuse to demean yourself by making an honest wage, who's paying for your living expenses? Us. Way to contribute to society.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I don't know I apply to these jobs and ask for 10.50 an hour...they have the right to not call me, or they have a right to negotiate, I have the right to tell them to stick their job too, if they want to pay me too low.
Oh yeah but that's another "leftist" thing, refusing to take crappy pay and waiting until someone actually will pay you what you are worth...

I'd rather have not two pennies to rub together than lower myself to working at Burger King or Taco Bell...I guess I just have an "entitlement" issue.

edit on 14-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: holy BEEP gd

Yes, you do. And the first step is admitting you have a problem. Assuming you're unemployed because you refuse to demean yourself by making an honest wage, who's paying for your living expenses? Us. Way to contribute to society.

/TOA

No, I am by doing odd jobs on my own...
Like cleaning, construction clean up, also I have a mate that works
Yes it is sometimes verryyyyyy good to be a woman.

Also I helped with my friends' business a carwash for no pay...
So what?
I rather work for a decent person than be whipped and talked down by some PIG$*)%&^ # All day.