Good job...
DS1119
Posts: 33,497
...New York State. You never cease to amaze me. :fp:
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article ... 638409.php
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article ... 638409.php
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Just wait 27 weeks then you can have that position at a rate of over 100K per year but only keep it for a maximum of 12K per year. :? :fp: Makes perfect sense. Instead of hiring three people at the same time with these federal funds for 15/hour and tripling the workforce and productivity over that time period and also getting them off of the unemployment books so a business may be able to go out and hire someone else instead of paying benefits, lets dramatically over pay these workers. Makes perfect NY sense. This state is so ass backwards it's ridiculous. :fp:
The prevailing wage is only applicable to public jobs.
And it's exactly the reason why unions need to be eliminated. Picking up debris, as hard as a job as it may be, is hardly skilled labor. And working into the pay rate for the unemployed...retirement benefits? Really? Let's get citizens working before you worry about people's retirement well being NYS. I'm sure the unemployed receiving this pay is stashing it away for their retirement? :? :fp: :roll: :crazy:
unions don't need to be eliminated and I can tell you for sure that it will never happen,the money involved with union to government contrubtions and loans to different groups is too much to just say screw it.
I get pissed at union corruption too but but it needs to be fixed not eliminated,eliminating unions will never happen
Godfather.
You sure about that? How many people are in unions nationwide today as opposed to 50 years ago? Considering that union workers only make up about 6% of the private sector jobs I would say it's just a matter of time. The government will eventually follow suit. Just my opinion.
But that's not even my point. My point if this states willingness to consistently spend money ridiculously. $51/ dollars an hour to clean debris?
The prevailing wage was instituted to keep a level playing field in hard-bid public sector contracts (or union contractors wouldn't be able to compete). It also ensures that tax-payer supported contracts will always be on the high-end as well.
In the example above, prevailing wage rates don't seem like they should apply if they are using it as a work program.
We have similar problems here in bankrupt CA. The joke here goes:
Q: What's orange and sleeps six?
A: A Caltrans work van."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Is it irony that the co-author of the bill that created prevailing wage requirements on public works has a surname that is synonymous with pork?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This does not apply to everyone so please don't take it that way but unions breeds laziness in a good portion of union members. My ex is a manager with the Pepsi Bottling Group and anytime one of the union members did anything wrong it was a big hooplah of paperwork, meetings, etc. She actually had a delivery driver get caught drinking on the job and he was suspended after about 6 months of jumping through hoops for 5 days. He was in uniform driving a Pepsi truck and drinking. Basically he got a vacation. I work at a car dealership and I drive a company car. If that happened to me, I'd be fired instantly. It's called accountablity and I believe unions allow some people to feel sheltered and protected.
it's a tempary job I think, but that aside..union wages set the standard for american pay/income, I know of several companys that pay union scale just so they can hire and keep talented help, think about what the minimum wage is and compare it to any or most union wages, it's a huge differance and I believe if union wages were eliminated lower non union wages will follow and to expect a corp. to lower their prices to adjust to the lower wage is plain crazy, unions serve a vital purpus in our country,it's just too bad that there so much courpution inside of some unions.
Godfather.
My opinion differs but I respect yours.
A lot of people in unions may should be earning minimum wage. Why should a guy who happens to work for NYS spreading sealer and patching roads with dry patch be making 30/hour while a guy doing the same job for a private company but on driveways and parking lots be making 15? The private sector is and always will be smarter than the government. Money rules (hate to say) and the private sectors realize this and realize it in how unions should be dealt with. Eliminated.
WHere my dislike for unions started was when I was in high school. I would work 10-12 hours a week part time as a bag boy. I had to pay union dues at the grocery store I worked for and I was a part time fucking bagboy!
I haven't worked a union job since 1975 or 6 (may as well be 1884, right?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I have some good friends in the Teamsters and they're still one of the strongest unions in America, one of the sad things about unions is that they save the jobs of lazy people because they have sienority (most companys with union contracts can fire a guy for any reason with in the first 90 to 120 days depending on their contract)
we actually have guy that got caught sleeping in the company gym on security video ! and between the union and the aclu he ended up suing the company for racial harasment and won,he said the company singled him out because he is black...and this guy is as lazy as they get !
but yes sienority is a major problem when it's used to defend the lazy and useless and that's one of the things that needs to be fixed.
Godfather.
For the record, I work for a union. I fully support them. But that's in Canada. We don't get overpaid for poor work, and we can't do a shit poor job without getting disciplined or fired. We are, however, protected from harassment and narcissistic supervisors, and are ensured a human level of vacation and a secure pension. I don't understand union bashers. They protect workers' rights. Anyone against that confuses me. I get being against abuse of the system, but the two aren't synonymous.
Take your thoughtful, level-headed Canadian talk elsewhere!
In my union (a huge one - Canadian Union of Public Employees), there are caveats in the contract that cover things like gross negligence and things like that. That should be the case for all unions... If a contract does not allow for that, then you should actually look towards the employer, who agreed to every term in said contract. There is no way a union is going to strike because the employer wants to add that someone who drives drunk on the job has to be subjected to particular discipline. Unions do not generally breed laziness. So if it takes THAT much to discipline and employee for gross negligence as you describe, then the employer is ultimately at fault for signing that contract. Saying that union workers are largely lazy is a really dangerous stereotype IMHO. What it is is making huge generalizations based on specific unusual incidents (like yours about the driver), and such generalizations lend towards the loss of respect for protecting workers' rights in general. DS1119, you said "unions breeds laziness in a good portion of union members." A good portion?? Where do you get that idea? I can assure you that's not true (and for the record, when you use that language, it's hard for a union member not to take it "the wrong way"
The conditions for which unions were formed in the first place have NOT disappeared. On top of that, new conditions have cropped up to make unions even more important to ensure that people get fair pay and benefits for their work. Without unions employers do and will take every advantage of workers that they can. They will pay as little as possible, give the fewest benefits possible, and give workers the least amount of recourse they can legally get away with when the workers feel like their rights have been abused. And abuse of power grows and grows as well, and there is nothing non-union workers can do about it in most cases. Unions protect workers from abuse of power completely.
In my union (and this is fairly standard), an employee needs to go through progressive discipline if they are fuck ups. Their boss has the right at any time to hold a 1st meeting with HR and the union rep in attendance, and a verbal warning is issued. If the problem persists, they have a 2nd meeting where a written warning goes into the employee's file for 3 years. If the problem still persists, the employee can be fired. That's it. That seems really fair to me. It allows employees to fix their problems and learn from their mistakes, prevents abuses of power (i.e. ensures that the boss's reasons for discipline are real and reasonable), and lets employers terminate those with chronic work issues and who don't learn from their mistakes.
Again, super dangerous to call for the dissolution of all unions. Workers' rights will crumble rapidly if unions are abolished - corporations would take that as a clear sign that they can give the absolute minimum to workers, and workers will be left with nothing, no basis of comparison, there will be no worker competition in many industries, immigrants willing to take much lower pay will easily ensure that wages are rock bottom, and yet more people will resort to such wages in this kind of economy - exponential disadvantage for workers) ... Plus, the US has the least legally mandated amount of vacation per year in the entire developed world BY FAR (Canada is second to last)... getting rid of unions will reinforce this kind of shit rather than rail against it. I don't know why some Americans have it in their head that there is something good and admirable about people working long hours with no vacation, and working 16 hours a day with no extra pay. How did the idea of striking a healthy work/life balance become so much less admirable than people working their fingers to the bone to live a half comfortable life while corporations make record breaking profits each year?? Such a strange philosophy!
...phew. Sorry about the tangent! :fp: