bjack on 30/7/2015 at 00:14
It may be because I used "both sides of the fence" and you do not understand what I mean by that. It means both parties do this. In the IT world, the highest contributions the vendors make is to the democrats and they seem to go along with H1B just fine. Yes, corp do want to spend the absolute least for labor. Whatever it takes to make the last 1/4 look good - even at the expense of the corp in the long run. Gotta make those huge bonuses.
No, politico do not make laws to oppose it. They make laws to ALLOW it.
As for the lion, the compassion there comes from all different angles. For me, it pisses me off that that ass hole dragged bait to lure the lion out of his protected range.
bjack on 30/7/2015 at 00:15
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Yep, it's those Democrats in CA who do that. They're evil.
No, it is both sides of the fence, but Democrats that head up Microsoft, Oracle, and the like tend to not make things better. H1B is a federal law. Democrats in CA have little to nothing to do with it directly. However, they convince anyone that will listen that there is a shortage of skilled labor and we simply must import people that will work for 25 to 50 cents on the dollar. Offshore people make around $2 or $3 and hour, yet the contracting company charges $75.
Fafhrd, Taft-Hartley? Similar to H1B in my opinion, but from long ago. It does not allow you to simply hire scabs though. You can only hire non-union specialists if a union person is not available at the time. Say you need to run an advertising campaign in Tibet, yet cannot find a union Tibetan speaker in time for the promo. You are allowed to hire a scab to do this one spot. However, you cannot be a grocery store with a union contract and start hiring non-union butchers because they are simply cheaper.
I have been a manager in a union shop in CA. The union people got all of their benefits via the union (med, dental, tiny pension, etc.) If this were a right to work state, the non-paying non-union people would not get any of these benefits at all. Oh, you mean the collective bargaining agreements for pay? Well, in my shop, the poor guys working there made less than minimum wage after the union took their huge bite out of their checks for a tiny return. No merit raises. Wages and raises were 100% tied to seniority and specific tasks performed (scale). No allotments for higher production. No penalty for under production. Slacker ass holes made the same a go-getter guys. No incentive to do anything but absolute minimum work. Why try harder if it gets you nothing in return. Slack off and just collect your meager income like everyone else. Oh, and don't try to talk to the union. You'll apt to get a visit from some unhappy people.
In contrast, the south is now littered with non-union car factories. Unions have been unsuccessful in getting a majority to agree to union representation in these right to work states. That tells me the workers do not want to play with the unions, figuring they'll get a better deal on their own. Of course many will call these people people stupid, hater, racist, southern bubbas that don't know any better. Well, they are employed and the greedy union northerners getting paid $80K a year for tightening a bolt every 2 minutes are out of a job. Yes, an oversimplification, but I have known a floor manager at GM and his stories of thuggery and idiocy are legend. One ass hole figured it would be funny not to install a part on every 4th car that went by, forcing a huge slow down on the line. The manager repeatedly tried to get the guy to comply, but to no avail. Finally, after 6 months of union BS, he was able to get the butt-plug fired. During that effort, he was frequently accosted in the parking lot by the ass-wipe and feared for his life. His car was repeatedly vandalized. He received numerous threats. The union told him, "What do you want us to do about it? It's not our problem." How about firing the creep now?
Hey, not all unions in the USA are bad and corrupt, just a lot of them. History has proven this. Maybe I watch too many movies like GoodFellas.
Fafhrd on 30/7/2015 at 03:58
Quote:
Thousands of IT people are being forced out - having their jobs sent to India, China, Bulgaria, etc. The middle class base is quickly dissolving before our eyes.
I need to address this one now: a big reason why this is happening is
because the tech sector is not unionized. California is an at-will state, just like every state except Montana. Without enforceable employment contracts (which tend to only come from a collective bargaining agreement) there is nothing to prevent a company from laying off their IT staff and outsourcing it.
Quote:
However, you cannot be a grocery store
with a union contract (oh? a Contract? Not state law? -F)and start hiring non-union butchers because they are simply cheaper.
You can hire a non-union butcher if you want, but they have to be paid the same as a union butcher, and get the same benefits.
THAT'S THE POINT. Union protections extend to everyone in the work group, even if they aren't in the union.
[edit]
Quote:
Fafhrd, Taft-Hartley? Similar to H1B in my opinion, but from long ago.
WTF? Taft-Hartley has absolutely nothing in common with H1B, what are you smoking?
bjack on 30/7/2015 at 17:43
T/H allows an employer to fill a position if a union individual with sufficient skill cannot be found the the need is urgent. H1B allows a firm to hire a low paid worker if and only if qualified citizens and green card holders cannot be found. You do not see the similarity? Both cases involve scabs as replacements. In the case of H1B though, it is much easier to cheat the system.
I say we just drop this subject about unions. It was not even a major part of my diatribe. :) Let's just let this thread die and sink down a bit. Someone else is bound to come up with something more interesting anyway. The Windows 10 thing is a great start :cheeky:
Fafhrd on 30/7/2015 at 23:05
Quote Posted by bjack
T/H allows an employer to fill a position if a union individual with sufficient skill cannot be found the the need is urgent.
Nope. I'm just gonna go ahead and paste the entire text of the NLRB page on Taft-Hartley, because you're just being willfully ignorant, here.
Quote:
The Taft-Hartley Act made major changes to the Wagner Act. Although Section 7 was retained intact in the revised law, new language was added to provide that employees had the right to refrain from participating in union or mutual aid activities except that they could be required to become members in a union as a condition of employment.
Taft-Hartley defined six additional unfair labor practices, reflecting Congress' perception that some union conduct also needed correction. The Act was amended to protect employees' rights from these unfair practices by unions.
The amendments protected employees' Section 7 rights from restraint or coercion by unions, and said that unions could not cause an employer to discriminate against an employee for exercising Section 7 rights. They declared the closed shop illegal, but provided that employers could sign a union shop agreement under which employees could be required to join the union on or after the 30th day of employment.
The amendments also imposed on unions the same obligation to bargain in good faith that the Wagner Act placed on employers. They prohibited secondary boycotts, making it unlawful for a union that has a primary dispute with one employer to pressure a neutral employer to stop doing business with the first employer.
Unions were prohibited from charging excessive dues or initiation fees, and from "featherbedding," or causing an employer to pay for work not performed. The new law contained a "free speech clause," providing that the expression of views, arguments, or opinions shall not be evidence of an unfair labor practice absent the threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.
Several significant changes were made for representation elections. Supervisors were excluded from bargaining units, and the Board had to give special treatment to professional employees, craftsmen and plant guards in determining bargaining units.
Congress also added four new types of elections. The first permitted employers faced with a union's demand for recognition to seek a Board-conducted election. The other three enabled employees to obtain elections to determine whether to oust incumbent unions, whether to grant to unions authority to enter into a union shop agreement, or whether to withdraw union shop authorization previously granted. (The provisions authorizing the union shop elections were repealed in 1951).
bjack on 31/7/2015 at 00:17
No, not willfully ignorant. I got my paraphrased quote from SAG - AFTRA.
What is a Taft-Hartley?
The Taft-Hartley Act is a US Federal labor law enacted by Congress in 1947. As it relates herein, the law allows a signatory producer to hire a non-union performer if that non-union performer possesses a quality or skill essential to the role and an available union performer with the needed quality or skill cannot be found. When hiring a non-union performer for a SAG-AFTRA covered role, you must submit to the union a Taft-Hartley report with the performers information, the reason for hire and the performers headshot.
So I guess this union is full of willful ignorance too? OK, now I will go away for a while.
Tony_Tarantula on 31/7/2015 at 23:38
Quote Posted by bjack
It may be because I used "both sides of the fence" and you do not understand what I mean by that. It means both parties do this. In the IT world, the highest contributions the vendors make is to the democrats and they seem to go along with H1B just fine. Yes, corp do want to spend the absolute least for labor. Whatever it takes to make the last 1/4 look good - even at the expense of the corp in the long run. Gotta make those huge bonuses.
It isn't entirely about "profit" though. I got to have a conversation about the current hiring climate with a sitting member of the CFR(Council of Foreign Relations) this week and he was remarkably candid. He was very blunt in stating that both his firm and others have found that millenials make very poor employees. To quote him exactly "A lot of millennials aren't all there. They don't have the same work ethic we need our employees to have". That dissatisfaction with new graduates is part of the reason why companies are increasingly relying on non-traditional hiring programs such as using H1B immigrants or military veteran programs to fill entry level openings instead of traditional on campus recruiting.
