21 Dec 05
Originally posted by rwingettAt a measly $100,000 a year, he'll be lucky to be able to have a maid for one day a week, never mind a chauffeur, butler, gardener, pool boy, etc. etc. because of the goddamn minimum wage. His mansion will go all to hell, never mind the villa in Zurich. Have you no compassion for the potential suffering of the incredibly wealthy?
So if $100,000 is sufficient for the assembly line worker, why isn't it sufficient for the CEO? Why does the CEO get $10 million instead?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you talking about Cardinal Law or assembly line workers?
At a measly $100,000 a year, he'll be lucky to be able to have a maid for one day a week, never mind a chauffeur, butler, gardener, pool boy, etc. etc. because of the goddamn minimum wage. His mansion will go all to hell, never mind the villa in Zurich. Have you no compassion for the potential suffering of the incredibly wealthy?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, let's look at a couple of things. These transit workers average $60,000 per year. That's pretty good. What they are primarily striking for, as I understand it, is retirement pensions.
In response to Rwingnut's post, I was referring to a hypothetical CEO forced to scratch out a meagre existence at $100,000 a year.
One thing I keep hearing from the leader of the strike is that they want "dignity" as he is tired of people looking down on them. I don't think you can negotiate dignity.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by kirksey957It's a lot easier if you're making $10 million, as opposed to 60k. 10 mil can buy you a lot of dignity.
OK, let's look at a couple of things. These transit workers average $60,000 per year. That's pretty good. What they are primarily striking for, as I understand it, is retirement pensions.
One thing I keep hearing from the leader of the strike is that they want "dignity" as he is tired of people looking down on them. I don't think you can negotiate dignity.
22 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957The news reports aren't very good on focusing on the issues between the union and management preferring to concentrate on how the unfortunate populace is being inconvenienced by the greedy workers during the Christmas season. Be that as it may, it appears that the contract offered would triple the percentage of the workers' earnings that would be contributed to the pension system from 2 to 6%. This would wipe out most of the real proposed pay increases in the contract which are 3.5 to 4% yearly for three years, or slightly above the expected cost of living increase. This is at a time when,as already mentioned, the MTA has a $1 billion surplus, which management claims must all go to "modernizing" the system.
OK, let's look at a couple of things. These transit workers average $60,000 per year. That's pretty good. What they are primarily striking for, as I understand it, is retirement pensions.
One thing I keep hearing from the leader of the strike is that they want "dignity" as he is tired of people looking down on them. I don't think you can negotiate dignity.
I believe the "dignity" the union officials are referring to is to be treated in a decent manner by management, not the general public.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by rwingettYour spiritual vacuosity is evident. 10 million will not buy you dignity. It may buy you "friends." It may buy you an ego. But it will not buy dignity.
It's a lot easier if you're making $10 million, as opposed to 60k. 10 mil can buy you a lot of dignity.
Think about this. If you're driving one of those trains around, having all those people depending on you to get to where they are going, hell, that sounds like a damn dream to me. Get to be a damn kid, but you're making 60K a year. All you got to do is sit down and make sure you don't go too damn fast. It's like the toy train set going around the X-mas tree except it's a lot bigger and you get paid a lot of money. That sounds like a good deal to me.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by kirksey95760k a year may be good pay in backwater Indiana or Trailer Park "Rita", but when you're living in New York it's just "okay". I don't see many transport workers having second homes in New Jersey or month long vacations in Paris.
Your spiritual vacuosity is evident. 10 million will not buy you dignity. It may buy you "friends." It may buy you an ego. But it will not buy dignity.
Think about this. If you're driving one of those trains around, having all those people depending on you to get to where they are going, hell, that sounds like a damn dream to me. Get to be a ...[text shortened]... except it's a lot bigger and you get paid a lot of money. That sounds like a good deal to me.
The average train driver in Holland (which has a population of 16 million) has at least one person jump in front of his train during his life-time.
Like bus drivers and plane pilots, train drivers have a hell of a lot of responsibility on their shoulders.
Do you know what a human feels like when you drive off and someone's bag is stuck in the door and that person is dragged over the platform.
Even if you do stop in time, it's a heavy guilt for whatever the bloody pay is.
Not just the train drivers. What about the conducters? How much shite do they have to put up with each day? Or the ticket venders? Etc. etc.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by shavixmirShav: The average train driver in Holland (which has a population of 16 million) has at least one person jump in front of his train during his life-time.
60k a year may be good pay in backwater Indiana or Trailer Park "Rita", but when you're living in New York it's just "okay". I don't see many transport workers having second homes in New Jersey or month long vacations in Paris.
The average train driver in Holland (which has a population of 16 million) has at least one person jump in front of his ...[text shortened]... onducters? How much shite do they have to put up with each day? Or the ticket venders? Etc. etc.
Yeah, but unlike New York, they probably slow down.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by Wajoma
I mean any law that prohibits the voluntary exchange of value for value...that the best person to assign a value for their time is that person themself.
Indeed. Do you think that Mexicans in Mexico, working 18 hours a day for $100 a
week are doing so voluntarily or because they are forced to because the government
either turns a blind eye towards them or because there is no governemnt in the area
to protect them?
And, your comment contradicts your stance on the strike itself. If the people striking
feel that they are not getting their worth, then why are they at fault? Aren't they
just demonstrating how valuable they are in order to command what they feel is a fair
wage?
You can't have it both ways, either you will give the worker his right to strike or you
will accept that laws are necessary to prevent businesses from abusing workers like was
common in 1930s midwest America.
You've worded the statement incorrectly, people are "allowed" to earn "about $20,000" regardless of what arbritrary rate the minimum is. Here is the correct wording:
I assume you mean the increased minmum wage which bans a person from earning less than $20,000 a year on a full-time workload.
Ok. Fair enough. So what? Minimum wage laws are in place to prevent employer abuse
by insisting that a person working a full-time job can earn a wage which allows them to
live above poverty level. I realize that this is a restriction upon business, but, given business
track records, they've earned a bit of monitoring.
Also, it is not "clear that employment rates have not suffered from any statistically significant standpoint." "statistically significant standpoint" is about as wishy washy as you can get.
If my statement is lacking in veracity, show me a study that demonstrates that this increased
minimum wage has resulted in lower employment rates. If it is truly 'wishy washy' it should
be trivial of you to do so.
Nemesio
22 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI understood there was an increase in the retirement age from 55 to 62 in the package as well.
The news reports aren't very good on focusing on the issues between the union and management preferring to concentrate on how the unfortunate populace is being inconvenienced by the greedy workers during the Christmas season. Be that as it may, it appears that the contract offered would triple the percentage of the workers' earnings that would be contr ...[text shortened]... ials are referring to is to be treated in a decent manner by management, not the general public.
Isn't this all part of a wider proposal to roll back pension and other benefits for all NY municipal workers?
If so, shouldn't other municipal workers be on strike in support?
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by RedmikeAnd now the strikers are intimidated with jail time. Always the workers that get the pointy end, isn;t it? Bet the bosses aren't worrying about their retirement packages.
I understood there was an increase in the retirement age from 55 to 62 in the package as well.
Isn't this all part of a wider proposal to roll back pension and other benefits for all NY municipal workers?
If so, shouldn't other municipal workers be on strike in support?
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell think about the government reaction to another group of people trying to get better conditions for poor workers for americans...
And now the strikers are intimidated with jail time. Always the workers that get the pointy end, isn;t it? Bet the bosses aren't worrying about their retirement packages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World
"The effectiveness of the IWW's non-violent tactics sparked violent reaction by government, company management, and mobs of "respectable citizens". In 1914, Joe Hill (Joel Hägglund) was accused of murder and, despite only circumstantial evidence, was executed by the state of Utah in 1915. Frank Little, another senior IWW member, was lynched in Butte, Montana. In 1916 at Everett, Washington a drunken mob of deputized businessmen led by Sheriff Donald McRae attacked Wobblies on the steamer VERONA, killing at least five union members (six more were never accounted for and probably were lost in Puget Sound). Two members of the mob were killed, probably by their own side's cross-fire.
Many IWW members opposed the United States participation in World War I, but the organization took no official position on the conflict. Regardless, the right-wing press and the U.S. Government were able to turn public opinion against the IWW, because of the IWW's refusal to support World War I. This led to vigilante mobs attacking the IWW in many places, including Centralia, Washington in November 1919, where IWW member and army veteran, Wesley Everest, was killed by a lynch mob.
The government used World War I as an opportunity to crush the IWW. An IWW newspaper, the Industrial Worker, wrote just before the declaration of war: "Capitalists of America, we will fight against you, not for you! There is not a power in the world that can make the working class fight if they refuse." Upon the U.S. declaration of war, however, the organization ceased all anti-war activity and propaganda. In September 1917, U.S. Department of Justice agents made simultaneous raids on forty-eight IWW meeting halls across the country. In 1917, one hundred and sixty-five IWW leaders were arrested for conspiring to hinder the draft, encourage desertion, and intimidate others in connection with labor disputes, under the new Espionage Act; one hundred and one went on trial before Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis in 1918.
They were all convicted—even those who had not been members of the union for years—and given prison terms of up to twenty years. Sentenced to prison by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis and released on bail, Haywood fled to the Soviet Union where he remained until his death. Communist Party promises to reimburse those who had staked Haywood's bond went unfulfilled.
After the war the repression continued. Members of the IWW were prosecuted under various State and federal laws and the 1920 Palmer Raids singled out the foreign-born members of the organization. By the mid-1920s membership was already declining due to government repression and it decreased again substantially during a contentious organizational schism in 1924 when the organization split between the "Westerners" and the "Easterners" over a number of issues, including the role of the General Administration (often oversimplified as a struggle between "centralists" and "decentralists"😉 and attempts by the Communist Party to dominate the organization. By 1930 membership was down to around 10,000."
D
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by Ragnoraktsk, tsk, raggy, raggy, raggy.
While Nemesio's post is great, I have a question for you...
Which of these scenarios would you prefer?
1) Every member of YOUR family works 16 hours a day 7 days a week for a total of 112 working hours per week. Including kids aged 12 and up. YOUR mother alone holds down 3 jobs, leaving the care of the under 12s to YOUR infirm granny. The total comb ...[text shortened]... f they didn't like the job, they always have the option to stop working. Brilliant!!! 🙄
D
We've had this before you try to limit the response by giving only two options.
Wajoma: "Which do you prefer? To beat your wife with a/ your fists, or b/ some kind of weapon.
Raggy: "bbbbut I don't beat my wife."
Wajoma: "ah ha avoiding the question eh."
Your example dosen't even pan out in 1) we have 16 x 7 x let's say 4 in the family, gives a total of 448 hours of work acheived, compared to 40 hours in option 2)
Since we're in fairy land I'm going for option 3) The husband goes to work for 10 minutes a week and earns $5000.
As you are well aware from previous discussions I'm opposed to force, so your crack about the concentration camp was your attempt at....what....humour?