Now if only WV's government would acknowledge same

The housing law was published a day after a commentator on state television said the government also will do away with wage limits, allowing state employees to earn as much they can as an incentive to be more productive. Economic commentator Ariel Terrero said a resolution approved in February but not yet published will remove the salary caps designed to promote social and economic equality.

"For the first time, it is clearly and precisely stated that a salary does not have a limit, that the roof of a salary depends on productivity," Terrero said.

Interviewed Friday night at the closing ceremonies of a forum opposing free-trade agreements, Raymundo Navarro, national secretary of Cuba's central workers union, called doing away with salary limits a "step the Cuban government has taken to conform to the conditions of today" and an "acknowledgment that one is not paid collectively, but paid for what one produces."

"Salaries in Cuba for workers have deteriorated a lot," he told The Associated Press. "This resolution tries to reorganize salaries to stimulate workers based on the principle of socialism, each according to his contribution to production."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351012,00.html

.

This is why unions and socialism (is there a difference) don't work. Sooner or later (mostly sooner) individuals come to understand that they don't have to work to get paid. The only difference between many union workers and welfare receiptants is who is doing the paying and what they are paying.

Aaron wrote:This is why unions and socialism (is there a difference) don't work. Sooner or later (mostly sooner) individuals come to understand that they don't have to work to get paid. The only difference between many union workers and welfare receiptants is who is doing the paying and what they are paying.

Unions only get what mangement is willing to give them. That has always been the case and always will be the case. When people begin to blame the unions for one mess or another, they had better take a good long look at management, because it was them then gave the benefit to begin with. The same is true of government employees. They get what the legislature and governor grants and passes, nothing more. Just remember unions and state employees are alot like firemen, police, the military, farmers, industries, and the list goes on. They stand with their lobbying hand out, it is the politican or in the case of unions the management that grants whatever is being asked.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:This is why unions and socialism (is there a difference) don't work. Sooner or later (mostly sooner) individuals come to understand that they don't have to work to get paid. The only difference between many union workers and welfare receiptants is who is doing the paying and what they are paying.

Unions only get what mangement is willing to give them. That has always been the case and always will be the case. When people begin to blame the unions for one mess or another, they had better take a good long look at management, because it was them then gave the benefit to begin with. The same is true of government employees. They get what the legislature and governor grants and passes, nothing more. Just remember unions and state employees are alot like firemen, police, the military, farmers, industries, and the list goes on. They stand with their lobbying hand out, it is the politican or in the case of unions the management that grants whatever is being asked.

Yeah, right!!!



Try telling that to every compant that's ever been charged with an unfair labor practice complaint or unwillingness to negotiate complaint. Every time a union doesn't get what they want, that's exactly what happens. Unions have our socialist government and their socialist laws backing them and if democrats win in November it will only get worse.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:This is why unions and socialism (is there a difference) don't work. Sooner or later (mostly sooner) individuals come to understand that they don't have to work to get paid. The only difference between many union workers and welfare receiptants is who is doing the paying and what they are paying.

Unions only get what mangement is willing to give them. That has always been the case and always will be the case. When people begin to blame the unions for one mess or another, they had better take a good long look at management, because it was them then gave the benefit to begin with. The same is true of government employees. They get what the legislature and governor grants and passes, nothing more. Just remember unions and state employees are alot like firemen, police, the military, farmers, industries, and the list goes on. They stand with their lobbying hand out, it is the politican or in the case of unions the management that grants whatever is being asked.

Yeah, right!!!



Try telling that to every compant that's ever been charged with an unfair labor practice complaint or unwillingness to negotiate complaint. Every time a union doesn't get what they want, that's exactly what happens. Unions have our socialist government and their socialist laws backing them and if democrats win in November it will only get worse.

One of the reasons I don't waste much time posting anymore is because of the general ignorance of the posters. Union membership is declining. Unions are dying in many ofhte industries where they were once powerful. Being famalier witht he railroads, many of the concesstions the railroad unions won have been lost or taken back by management. Your arguement like many of your arguements, just doesn't hold water.

Cato wrote:One of the reasons I don't waste much time posting anymore is because of the general ignorance of the posters. Union membership is declining. Unions are dying in many ofhte industries where they were once powerful. Being famalier witht he railroads, many of the concesstions the railroad unions won have been lost or taken back by management. Your arguement like many of your arguements, just doesn't hold water.

If ignorance is a defining quality Cato, then you fit perfectly. Hell, I think you could hold a management position.

As for your tripe, yes, there was a time for the union. It is becasue of the Union that we have the federal Department of Labor that oversees agencies such as OSHA, MSHA, and like organizations. It is why we have safe workplaces and competative wages.

Back when the union stood for the working man and was willing to fight for him while weeding out the inferior workers that just wanted to collect a paycheck, it meant something to be Union.

Now about all the union does is protect worthless employees and makes it nearly impossible to get rid of bad people that have no business making the money or benefits they do. It is because of the union that places like the stamping plant in South Charleston went under and it is the union that has allowed Toyota to make a superior product to GM for a cheaper price and surpass them as a better company.

You say my arugment holds no water but you didn't refute it just as you won't refute this one. The reason is simple. YOU CAN'T!!!

As I said Cato, there was a time for the union, which my father was a member of for over 35 years.

That time has long passed!!!

Back when the union stood for the working man and was willing to fight for him while weeding out the inferior workers that just wanted to collect a paycheck, it meant something to be Union.

Now about all the union does is protect worthless employees and makes it nearly impossible to get rid of bad people that have no business making the money or benefits they do. It is because of the union that places like the stamping plant in South Charleston went under and it is the union that has allowed Toyota to make a superior product to GM for a cheaper price and surpass them as a better company.

I wish I had written that.

Unions were once geared to protect the worker. Now the exist only to extort money from the companies and are run by corrupt bosses that give much of it [money] to friends and relatives for "job positions" that only exist on paper.

They are not all like that, but many of the big ones are.

Hi TerryRC and Aaron,

I fully agree. I think there are times when unions are necessary and good, even now. I also see that union bosses are themselves corrupt and do not have the workers' best interests at heart.

Within the NEA (which I am convinced, from my students who have children in the Chicago Public Schools, is protecting teachers who do not even like childen and barely do their jobs) there is a union, get this, that represents union employees to union leadership. Employees of the union itself have seen fit to unionize. That tells me quite a bit.

I think of the plants that Hyundai and Toyota have been able to put up in the US, and the plants that GM and Ford have had to close. Was UAW good for the workers in the closed plants? Well, perhaps as long as the "worker centers" still function, in which the employees are paid big bucks for not working, but those good paying jobs are forever lost to young men and women who need them.

Aaron wrote:

As for your tripe, yes, there was a time for the union. It is becasue of the Union that we have the federal Department of Labor that oversees agencies such as OSHA, MSHA, and like organizations. It is why we have safe workplaces and competative wages.

And your point is what? We need federal government, unions caused an expansion of Federal Government, What?

Aaron wrote:Back when the union stood for the working man and was willing to fight for him while weeding out the inferior workers that just wanted to collect a paycheck, it meant something to be Union.

Annnd!!!!!

Aaron wrote:Now about all the union does is protect worthless employees and makes it nearly impossible to get rid of bad people that have no business making the money or benefits they do. It is because of the union that places like the stamping plant in South Charleston went under and it is the union that has allowed Toyota to make a superior product to GM for a cheaper price and surpass them as a better company.

Unions only got what managment allowed them to have. The last time I looked it takes two for a contract to be valid. As far as GM and Toyota are concerned, if you want ot blame anyone for the infoerior product that GM makes, blame the manangement at allows the inferior product to be made and infact designs an inferior product.

Yea, unions are pains in the butt and yea it is really about maintaining membership, but when it comes to the failure of a plant or business or the fact they make and inferior product, any thinking person is going to look one place, MANAGEMENT!!!!!!!!!

Aaron wrote:You say my arugment holds no water but you didn't refute it just as you won't refute this one. The reason is simple. YOU CAN'T!!!

As I said Cato, there was a time for the union, which my father was a member of for over 35 years.

That time has long passed!!!

Yawwnnnnnnnn. I have watched you and others post on this board. You place blame for problems on everyone but those people directly responsibile for problems. You place blame for poor education on teachers, yet you never bother to mention, the idiot politicians that make the mandates, or the administators that fail to do thier job, or parents that don't support education or place emphesis on education, or communities that are more worried about football than academics.

You and your ilk do the same for unions. I have never been a member of a union, nor do I care to be one. I can speak for myself. However, I have spent a lifetime watching unions and management work together and have found that unions only ever get what managmenet is willing to give them. There is nothing you can say that is going to change that. You can believe what you want but that certainly doesn't make it so.

Cato wrote:Unions only got what managment allowed them to have.

In that one sentance you have shown, that in regard to unions, you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:Unions only got what managment allowed them to have.

In that one sentance you have shown, that in regard to unions, you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

You stated you are a manager. You mean to tell me that unions can force you to give what you don't have to give. If that is the case, I'm certainly glad you don't manage anything of mine.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:Unions only got what managment allowed them to have.

In that one sentance you have shown, that in regard to unions, you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

You stated you are a manager. You mean to tell me that unions can force you to give what you don't have to give. If that is the case, I'm certainly glad you don't manage anything of mine.

That's not what you said. So you realized how wrong you were and now you're going to try and change what you said. Sorry dude, that's not how it works. You said unions only got what management ALLOWED them to have.

Box of rocks dude!!!

Nice try though.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

As for your tripe, yes, there was a time for the union. It is becasue of the Union that we have the federal Department of Labor that oversees agencies such as OSHA, MSHA, and like organizations. It is why we have safe workplaces and competative wages.

And your point is what? We need federal government, unions caused an expansion of Federal Government, What?

Aaron wrote:Back when the union stood for the working man and was willing to fight for him while weeding out the inferior workers that just wanted to collect a paycheck, it meant something to be Union.

Annnd!!!!!

Aaron wrote:Now about all the union does is protect worthless employees and makes it nearly impossible to get rid of bad people that have no business making the money or benefits they do. It is because of the union that places like the stamping plant in South Charleston went under and it is the union that has allowed Toyota to make a superior product to GM for a cheaper price and surpass them as a better company.

Unions only got what managment allowed them to have. The last time I looked it takes two for a contract to be valid. As far as GM and Toyota are concerned, if you want ot blame anyone for the infoerior product that GM makes, blame the manangement at allows the inferior product to be made and infact designs an inferior product.

Yea, unions are pains in the butt and yea it is really about maintaining membership, but when it comes to the failure of a plant or business or the fact they make and inferior product, any thinking person is going to look one place, MANAGEMENT!!!!!!!!!

Aaron wrote:You say my arugment holds no water but you didn't refute it just as you won't refute this one. The reason is simple. YOU CAN'T!!!

As I said Cato, there was a time for the union, which my father was a member of for over 35 years.

That time has long passed!!!

Yawwnnnnnnnn. I have watched you and others post on this board. You place blame for problems on everyone but those people directly responsibile for problems. You place blame for poor education on teachers, yet you never bother to mention, the idiot politicians that make the mandates, or the administators that fail to do thier job, or parents that don't support education or place emphesis on education, or communities that are more worried about football than academics.

You and your ilk do the same for unions. I have never been a member of a union, nor do I care to be one. I can speak for myself. However, I have spent a lifetime watching unions and management work together and have found that unions only ever get what managmenet is willing to give them. There is nothing you can say that is going to change that. You can believe what you want but that certainly doesn't make it so.

Cato and I don't agree on very much, usually. But this time Cato is "right on".

Now Aaron can say that I'm dumb as a box of rocks, too. But, as Cato says, that certainly doesn't make it so. So, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

Cato and I don't agree on very much, usually. But this time Cato is "right on".

Now Aaron can say that I'm dumb as a box of rocks, too. But, as Cato says, that certainly doesn't make it so. So, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

Cato & Ziggy are correct. Management caves, union gets what it wants. I will say this, once you give it up it's nearly impossible to get it back. That's why Michael is hearing that the NEA protects teachers who are incompetent and cruel. They won't risk setting a precendent to get rid of a cruddy teacher.

ziggy wrote:Cato and I don't agree on very much, usually. But this time Cato is "right on".

Now Aaron can say that I'm dumb as a box of rocks, too. But, as Cato says, that certainly doesn't make it so. So, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

So you agree with Cato that the only thing the union ever got was what management wanted them to have. If that's the case, why was there ever a union?

The National Labor Relations Act (or Wagner Act) is a 1935 United States federal law that protects the rights of most workers in the private sector to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not, on the other hand, cover those workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.

Source

That's not what any of us have said. Better brush up on those reading comprehension skills, Aaron!

Cato wrote: However, I have spent a lifetime watching unions and management work together and have found that unions only ever get what managmenet is willing to give them.

Well now, I will agree with Aaron on that.

Management NEVER willing gives into the demands of the Unions as many concessions as they unwillingly are forced into conceeding to the Union's demands.

I remember the story about the Attwater-Kent Radio Corp. which employed several thousand people .......... and the Union called a "strike" demanding more pay, etc.

The old fellow that owned the company said "screw you", ......... locked the doors and went home.

And that was "the end" of Attwater-Kent radio manufacturing.

cheers.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Cato and I don't agree on very much, usually. But this time Cato is "right on".

Now Aaron can say that I'm dumb as a box of rocks, too. But, as Cato says, that certainly doesn't make it so. So, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

So you agree with Cato that the only thing the union ever got was what management wanted them to have. If that's the case, why was there ever a union?

That is not what Cato said.

Why do you habitually distort the debate when the truth would serve you better?

SamCogar wrote:I remember the story about the Attwater-Kent Radio Corp. which employed several thousand people .......... and the Union called a "strike" demanding more pay, etc.

The old fellow that owned the company said "screw you", ......... locked the doors and went home.

And that was "the end" of Attwater-Kent radio manufacturing.

cheers.

And every employer has that option. No employer has to submit to the union.

It ends up being two parties, each performing a voluntary act- the employer providing certain benefits, the employees going (back) to work. That the parties work to have varying degrees of leverage to achieve an advantage is, well, it's what life is about- advantages and disadvantages.

Stephanie wrote:That's not what any of us have said. Better brush up on those reading comprehension skills, Aaron!

Maybe you should go back and re-read what Cato wrote because that's EXACTLY what he said and you agreed with him.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Cato and I don't agree on very much, usually. But this time Cato is "right on".

Now Aaron can say that I'm dumb as a box of rocks, too. But, as Cato says, that certainly doesn't make it so. So, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

So you agree with Cato that the only thing the union ever got was what management wanted them to have. If that's the case, why was there ever a union?

That is not what Cato said.

Why do you habitually distort the debate when the truth would serve you better?

As I told Stephanie, that is exactly what Cato said and I'm not distorting anything. You might want to try reading what he said again. And when you do, will you still agree with him that the only thing unions have ever received is what management gave them?

What Cato actually said was, "However, I have spent a lifetime watching unions and management work together and have found that unions only ever get what managmenet is willing to give them."

Becoming "willing to give" to them is not the same as wanting them to have it.

Last time I got a traffic ticket I was willing to give the Magistrate the money for the fine- not because I wanted that office to have the money- but because the alternative (to not paying) caused me to be willing to give / pay it.

And if a Ford or Chevy 'wanted' to do business they had to be 'willing' to 'accept' the union. I'm sure someone in management said, "Hey, let's give these guys $50.00 plus/hour and put so much labor in our vehicles that we can't compete with the Japense" and management did it willingly.

Yeah, right.

If you buy that garbage I got some nice mountain side property down at Hurricane I'll sell you. There's even the possibility of a methane gas business there...

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote: However, I have spent a lifetime watching unions and management work together and have found that unions only ever get what managmenet is willing to give them.

Well now, I will agree with Aaron on that.

Management NEVER willing gives into the demands of the Unions as many concessions as they unwillingly are forced into conceeding to the Union's demands.

I remember the story about the Attwater-Kent Radio Corp. which employed several thousand people .......... and the Union called a "strike" demanding more pay, etc.

The old fellow that owned the company said "screw you", ......... locked the doors and went home.

And that was "the end" of Attwater-Kent radio manufacturing.

cheers.

Ah, way back when I was barely old enough to vote, a similar situation happened at Brown & Sharpe in RI. The union went on strike, Brown & Sharpe refused to capitulate, eventually they just closed their doors for good. It was really a tragedy. Brown & Sharpe was one of the regions larger employers and the negative impact on the machinist industry in that region is still felt to this day. Of course at the time economically it was a disaster.

Brown & Sharpe was the kind of place where an apprentice could learn the trade from soup to nuts. There is no such place any more. Now machinists are very hard to come by there.