Amendment 47: The right to work

calinis wrote:

Quote :

And what's the point of employment if the person will never be able to support themselves off of their pay?

2$ or 3$ is better than 0$. I guess these people will have less money to spend on pot....oh well...

2 or 3 dollars is still not enough to support yourself. It's irrelevant on that it's 'better than nothing', it's still too little.

Yes better than nothing is simply just as it implies: better than nothing.

Better than nothing doesn't cut it (in less your me).

Quote :

2 or 3 dollars is still not enough to support yourself. It's irrelevant on that it's 'better than nothing', it's still too little.

Some people in less developed countries live on less than a dollar a day.

calinis wrote:

Quote :

2 or 3 dollars is still not enough to support yourself. It's irrelevant on that it's 'better than nothing', it's still too little.

Some people in less developed countries live on less than a dollar a day.

But it still doesn't cut it.

Quote :

But it still doesn't cut it.

You just need food, water, and shelter. You can provide that with your 2 or 3 dollar an hour job.

calinis wrote:

Quote :

But it still doesn't cut it.

You just need food, water, and shelter. You can provide that with your 2 or 3 dollar an hour job.

Not in a capitalist society...

But you are expressing anarcho-primitive ideology.

Quote :

Not in a capitalist society...

But you are expressing anarcho-primitive ideology.

I'm saying people should strive to do better. However, at the most basic level, one needs only food, water, and shelter.

The largest amount of minimum wage labour is teenagers. Why do teenagers need 8$ an hour?

calinis wrote:

Quote :

Not in a capitalist society...

But you are expressing anarcho-primitive ideology.

I'm saying people should strive to do better. However, at the most basic level, one needs only food, water, and shelter.

The largest amount of minimum wage labour is teenagers. Why do teenagers need 8$ an hour?

Teenagers actually get less...

Minimum Wage actually only applies to Citizens 18+.

which is also why day labourers get payed significantly less.

Quote :

Teenagers actually get less...

Minimum Wage actually only applies to Citizens 18+.

which is also why day labourers get payed significantly less.

Oh well. Less money for pot, I guess.

Besides it's not permenant. Get a job that pays the market equlibrium price for unskilled labour and then eventually get a job that pays more in a different labour market.

At least we can start our own businesses here. That's what I'm going to do.

Oh, come on, we're discussing 'equillibrium'? Guys, there's a concept that refutes 'market equillibrium'. It is called 'time'.

Christ, I hope they push this through in NY.

Now, unions have their perks and their benefits and sometimes can be very a very good way for the companies workers to tell the company to treat them better, however there is a darker side to unions.

First off, union dues. I refuse to join unions because of union dues. If a job requires me to join a union I won't work there because of union dues,and then the next thing.

Strikes, if a union decides to strike, you can't work if you're forced to be in the union. You'll get fired. I shit you not. That means if the company I work at is experiencing a strike, the option of "Hey, maybe I can use this strike to get a promotion!" doesn't exist.

This bill doesn't force unions not to exist, it says they must be opt-in. That's wonderful, it provides a choice to the worker. Some workers won't want to strike when the time comes. Others will. There is selection with this bill.

This is the kind of thing that state governments need to be doing.

nillerz wrote:

Christ, I hope they push this through in NY.

So they can crush it? It won't pass after people saw what it did to Wyoming.

Quote :

Now, unions have their perks and their benefits and sometimes can be very a very good way for the companies workers to tell the company to treat them better, however there is a darker side to unions.

First off, union dues. I refuse to join unions because of union dues. If a job requires me to join a union I won't work there because of union dues,and then the next thing.

... There's nothing wrong with union dues, it's how they're used which is the problem. If they're being spent on politicians and lobbying as they are now, that's obviously abusive. But if they are collecting money to save for striking workers, then this has benefits. First, striking workers can pay their bills. Second, it promotes workers' solidarity. Third, with such money the strikers can hold out for longer, and put more of a burden on the corporation, which is the only way they'll unclench, because they're tight-ass bourgie mother-fuckers.

Quote :

Strikes, if a union decides to strike, you can't work if you're forced to be in the union. You'll get fired. I shit you not. That means if the company I work at is experiencing a strike, the option of "Hey, maybe I can use this strike to get a promotion!" doesn't exist.

An opportunist, wonderful. How much competition do you want exactly (not rhetorical)?

And that's not exactly true what you say. You can get a promotion. You're assuming they would promote you based on the fact that you're willing to work in spite of the strike. Tell them that, and if they feel you deserve a promotion because of it, you'll get one. Then you can join management, leave the union, and be out of everyone's hair, since i'm sure your working class brothers would be sick of you for something like that, Judas.

Quote :

This bill doesn't force unions not to exist, it says they must be opt-in. That's wonderful, it provides a choice to the worker. Some workers won't want to strike when the time comes. Others will. There is selection with this bill.

It's funny that workers didn't support this bill then, eh? If you're too blind to read between the lines, then i'm sorry for you. Though it may not force, directly, these unions to not exist, if people don't fund the unions, then they'll die off, or become too much of a pushover to be able to defend the workers, leaving them to fend for themselves... right back to where we came from. This would inevitably lead to what happened in Wyoming, which will either force the workers to re-unionize, starting basically from scratch, or, if it were to be country wide, would likely send us back to the 20th century when strikes were broken up with force.
Either way, the corporations win, the workers lose.

Quote :

This is the kind of thing that state governments need to be doing.

You're a dreamer; keep fantacising.

Now do you guys see what the problem between me and Nillerz was?

Black_Cross wrote:

nillerz wrote:

Christ, I hope they push this through in NY.

So they can crush it? It won't pass after people saw what it did to Wyoming.

They probably will with our socialists in charge... doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

Quote :

Quote :

Now, unions have their perks and their benefits and sometimes can be very a very good way for the companies workers to tell the company to treat them better, however there is a darker side to unions.

First off, union dues. I refuse to join unions because of union dues. If a job requires me to join a union I won't work there because of union dues,and then the next thing.

... There's nothing wrong with union dues, it's how they're used which is the problem. If they're being spent on politicians and lobbying as they are now, that's obviously abusive. But if they are collecting money to save for striking workers, then this has benefits. First, striking workers can pay their bills. Second, it promotes workers' solidarity. Third, with such money the strikers can hold out for longer, and put more of a burden on the corporation, which is the only way they'll unclench, because they're tight-ass bourgie mother-fuckers.

[/quote]Nothing wrong with union dues... so long as they're volunteered, not stolen.

Quote :

Quote :

Strikes, if a union decides to strike, you can't work if you're forced to be in the union. You'll get fired. I shit you not. That means if the company I work at is experiencing a strike, the option of "Hey, maybe I can use this strike to get a promotion!" doesn't exist.

An opportunist, wonderful. How much competition do you want exactly (not rhetorical)?

I'd prefer little competition but I understand that it's competition that keeps opportunists working. It's perfectly fair, if you strike, you aren't working and therefore shouldn't get profits for that. If you are taking the place of someone who strikes, you are working so should get money. I know it hurts the effort against the company but if the company is treating you good enough then you've got no reason to strike. Standards!

Also, if alot of people strike and you are one of a few people that dont, the company will probably give you a bunch of perks, longer hours, more compensation, etc. It'd be in the strikers best interest to show up at work again. If there are only 4 workers instead of the usual 20, the strike is still effective., though

Quote :

And that's not exactly true what you say. You can get a promotion. You're assuming they would promote you based on the fact that you're willing to work in spite of the strike. Tell them that, and if they feel you deserve a promotion because of it, you'll get one. Then you can join management, leave the union, and be out of everyone's hair, since i'm sure your working class brothers would be sick of you for something like that, Judas.

Yeah, pretty much. It'd be in their best interest to suck up to me though because who knows, I could be paying their checks.

[quote]

Quote :

This bill doesn't force unions not to exist, it says they must be opt-in. That's wonderful, it provides a choice to the worker. Some workers won't want to strike when the time comes. Others will. There is selection with this bill.

It's funny that workers didn't support this bill then, eh? If you're too blind to read between the lines, then i'm sorry for you. Though it may not force, directly, these unions to not exist, if people don't fund the unions, then they'll die off, or become too much of a pushover to be able to defend the workers, leaving them to fend for themselves... right back to where we came from. This would inevitably lead to what happened in Wyoming, which will either force the workers to re-unionize, starting basically from scratch, or, if it were to be country wide, would likely send us back to the 20th century when strikes were broken up with force.
Either way, the corporations win, the workers lose. [/quotes]
Unions will form if they are needed. Force to break a strike was Carnegie's bullshit, not gonna fly nowadays.

I had a job as a tater farmer once, it was the best job ever. I worked 12 hours a day mininum, removing rocks from a conveyer of potatoes. I got a 30 minute lunch break and a decent wage. There was no union, hell there was no problem with the job at all. Now, I also worked as a customer service clerk at a supermarket. Had a union. Union dues took too much of my paycheck and prevented me from working the number of hours I'd like to. 12 hour shifts pushing paper would have been fine by me, the paycheck at the end of the week would have made it all worth it, but NO the union says I CANT work more than 6 HOURS.

fags...

Quote :

Quote :

This is the kind of thing that state governments need to be doing.

You're a dreamer; keep fantacising.

Well they seemed to try it over in Wyoming, hope they pass it here. I can't say anythng on the behalf of those people but over here we have beurocratic bullshit hanging from the ceilings, we need something to actually stand up for the worker, not something that stands up for the union.

nillerz wrote:

They probably will with our socialists in charge...

uhh... what?

Quote :

doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

Who said you did?

Quote :

I'd prefer little competition but I understand that it's competition that keeps opportunists working.

competition isn't motivation, so i assume that's not what you're saying here.

Quote :

It's perfectly fair, if you strike, you aren't working and therefore shouldn't get profits for that.

The people striking usually don't work on commission. They don't see profits if they do work.

Quote :

If you are taking the place of someone who strikes, you are working so should get money.

You're also undermining the cause of the exploited (i believe the term is back-stabbing), so you should also get a beating.

Quote :

I know it hurts the effort against the company but if the company is treating you good enough then you've got no reason to strike. Standards!

... Right. Scabs aren't scabs cos they think the company will treat them well. They're scabs cos they're oppressed as well, and need to survive. And if the company was treating its employees well, then you're right, there's no reason to strike... but this obviously isn't the case if they're striking.

Quote :

Also, if alot of people strike and you are one of a few people that dont, the company will probably give you a bunch of perks, longer hours, more compensation, etc. It'd be in the strikers best interest to show up at work again. If there are only 4 workers instead of the usual 20, the strike is still effective., though

... So you approve of sell-outs?

Quote :

Yeah, pretty much. It'd be in their best interest to suck up to me though because who knows, I could be paying their checks.

I doubt they'd promote you to CEO, but keep wishing. And even then, you're just signing they're checks, you're not paying their wage. The workers do that themselves by producing and distributing commodities and services. You're just giving them back about 10% of the wealth that they created. So you're legally stealing their funds. I consider it a slap in the face when i get my check.

Quote :

Unions will form if they are needed. Force to break a strike was Carnegie's bullshit, not gonna fly nowadays.

That's just dumb. It happens nowadays, just not in America because we have an illusion of freedom. But that illusion is gone once our wages get dropped and people can no longer keep the standard of living they're accustomed to. This would easily up the violence between the workers and the pigs.

Quote :

I had a job as a tater farmer once, it was the best job ever. I worked 12 hours a day mininum, removing rocks from a conveyer of potatoes. I got a 30 minute lunch break and a decent wage. There was no union, hell there was no problem with the job at all.

Sounds like the potato business was doing well. You shoulda asked for more, considering whoever owned the land was probably makin bank on your labor. But then you woulda been canned cos you didn't have a union.

Quote :

Now, I also worked as a customer service clerk at a supermarket. Had a union. Union dues took too much of my paycheck and prevented me from working the number of hours I'd like to. 12 hour shifts pushing paper would have been fine by me, the paycheck at the end of the week would have made it all worth it, but NO the union says I CANT work more than 6 HOURS.

I'm convinced you made this up. I've never heard of a union limiting hours. That was probably a condition that the store put forward so they don't have to pay OT. I'll believe you if you can provide a link to the contract.

Quote :

Well they seemed to try it over in Wyoming, hope they pass it here. I can't say anythng on the behalf of those people but over here we have beurocratic bullshit hanging from the ceilings, we need something to actually stand up for the worker, not something that stands up for the union.

Ya, they tried it in Wyoming, and i've already stated the effects in prior posts.