|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: I think I might just go on strike...
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
You may be right.
(I hope when Erin repairs the search function tonight, no one can find this thread; it would probablly be safer that way.)
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Safer for whom?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
Sentient beings, mostly.
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Bah! What do they know?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Call in your unavailability to get to your job on time before that day then if it's a strike known well in advance. Even if your boss will pay you for work you don't do, in a retail environment it's important to make sure things are covered during that time you are not working.
At my previous job in a computer store, if I was an hour late it would mean one technician would be tied up with work out front instead of doing service jobs. If I was really unlucky in my timing it could push a couple of warranty jobs back one day and lower the service excellence rating which Apple uses to determine labour costs paid to third-party service centres. We're looking at a minimum of $150 loss of income to a small business, which is why the policy of lateness being taken out of TOIL (time off in lieu of payment for overtime) at time and a half and/or working overtime to recover lost productivity was the policy.
I'm personally astonished that people think it's acceptable to get paid for productivity lost when they are late - unless of course the striking union/s provide compensation to affected businesses for lost productivity. That may be decent in a salaried position where you are paid for doing a job, but not for a position paid by the hour. The vast majority of small businesses don't have money growing on trees to pay for work that is not getting done outside of money set aside in annual budgets for each employee's 6 days of paid sick leave and 20 days of paid annual leave.
Aww...
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Cue violins
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
Cue violins
So to sum up: you don't care if a store provides a worse service or loses productivity and income, just so long as its staff are well paid and allowed to turn up late without penalty?
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
Cue violins
No, cue bankruptcies. Cue no jobs being created by the private sector to compensate for public sector cuts.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
Cue violins
So to sum up: you don't care if a store provides a worse service or loses productivity and income, just so long as its staff are well paid and allowed to turn up late without penalty?
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
Er, no. Neither. Businesses provide a profit for their owners. Customers are necessary, staff are usually necessary.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
....
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
Funny. Businesses exist first and foremost to provide a profit to owners; claiming altruism here is more than wonky.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
Er, no. Neither. Businesses provide a profit for their owners. Customers are necessary, staff are usually necessary.
Yeah, OK. But in order to generate that profit they must provide the best possible service to their customers, and not to their staff.
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[ Businesses provide a profit for their owners.
Or not in my case ATM ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
Cue violins
So to sum up: you don't care if a store provides a worse service or loses productivity and income, just so long as its staff are well paid and allowed to turn up late without penalty?
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
I do have a certain sympathy with small businesses of the kind we're talking about (although not enough to see why workers should bear the cost of absence or latenesss that is not their own fault). And I do agree that you are probably more likely to find the ethic of service, which should be the prevailing ethic of business, in small firms which are actually run by their owners.
But it was the tone of the post to which i was replying which pissed me off- and why not, this is Hell after all! Not just the assumption that when a strike is called it's always the union's fault (it is sometimes, but not always: sometimes employers are extremely unreasonable)but the implied 'hey, it's sooo unfair, we even have to pay the bludgers while they're on holiday and off sick'.
So i stand by my post.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, OK. But in order to generate that profit they must provide the best possible service to their customers,
That is bullshit. Any basic economics and business knowledge will show you that the main factors that play a role in how profitable a business actually is often have little to do with the quality of "service" they provide (and you also, for reasons best known to yourself, seem to ignore primary and secondary economic sectors. Why the faddish idolatory for the tertiary sector?)
quote:
and not to their staff.
Again, simply funny.
Over and over again you try making some sort of halfarsed argument about how businesses are implicitly altruistic operations, and how those naughty strikers and/or staff are being all "selfish". Talk about self-serving arguments.
quote:
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.
Do you think you could possibly tackle the actual point? Because this fiddlefaddling around seems more than a bit silly to me.
Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners. This is a central point, the profit motive. It is not primarily altruistic in any way.
And as for the ritual bitching about staff and so on, until you finally grasp what staff, workers and others grasp,that the world does not centre around whatever some businessman wants, then we're just going to stay stuck here on this small point, aren't we?
There is no valid Great Grand Religious Justification for a selfishness centred around the wants of a business, or of a consumer, or of a worker; pretty much almost everything gets put up for negotiation.
(Ignoring the case of co-ops and some charity businesses, all of which are a very small sector, relatively speaking).
[ 08. November 2010, 14:55: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Why the faddish idolatory for the tertiary sector?
It's pretty much all we've got left in Britain these days.
quote:
Over and over again you try making some sort of halfarsed argument about how businesses are implicitly altruistic operations, and how those naughty strikers and/or staff are being all "selfish". Talk about self-serving arguments.
I've said nothing about altruism. I've said that businesses exist to make money by selling a product or service to their customers, and that that is rightly more important than keeping their staff happy (in situations where it's not possible to do both).
The argument for altruism is all coming from those who think a business primarily exists for the benefit of its staff.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.
Do you think you could possibly tackle the actual point? Because this fiddlefaddling around seems more than a bit silly to me.
Which point would that be?
quote:
And as for the ritual bitching about staff and so on, until you finally grasp what staff, workers and others grasp,that the world does not centre around whatever some businessman wants, then we're just going to stay stuck here on this small point, aren't we?
Of course the world doesn't. Their jobs might, though.
quote:
There is no valid Great Grand Religious Justification for a selfishness centred around the wants of a business, or of a consumer, or of a worker; pretty much almost everything gets put up for negotiation.
Yes, negotiation. Not extortion.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And do employers not extort?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And do employers not extort?
No, they just fire. Pffft. And of course employees can just quit at any time, so they're equal, wot? Just as the rich man and the poor man are equally prohibited from sleeping in the park.
What the worshippers of the Free Market (pbui) can't see is the inherent inequality of power. The union is an attempt to balance that. Can't have that, can we? Then the businessmen might have to treat their employees well, and for some reason treating the employees well is anathema. Oh, right, because of the Free Market (pbui). Employers must be Free to squeeze whatever they can out of their employees, who must remain powerless, or the employers aren't Free. (That is a rough translation of what is meant by using the word "extortion" of labour unions.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
Bullshit again. But let's proceed as if your perception was correct:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's pretty much all we've got left in Britain these days.
I wonder why. Oh dear, oh yes, it was all that 1980's snobbishness about filthy workers, strikers, manufacturing as a whole. Hey, and you think repeating old mantras will help?
quote:
I've said nothing about altruism.
Oh puhleeeze. We can go back to each post where you implied it, while contrasting the implied altruism against the alleged selfishness of strikers and/or staff. But hey.
quote:
I've said that businesses exist to make money by selling a product or service to their customers,
No. You actually said something different. But never mind.
quote:
and that that is rightly more important than keeping their staff happy
Again and again, you slide in invalid implied moral arguments. "Rightly" ????? I reckon you've got Hume turning in his grave at a number of revolutions per second that if harnessed could power the entire British isles for decades. Talk about alternative energy!
quote:
The argument for altruism is all coming from those who think a business primarily exists for the benefit of its staff.
Bollocks. Where? Cite a post or quote.
quote:
]Yes, negotiation. Not extortion.
You really don't want to grasp that name-calling is not an effective substitute for a good argument?
FYI: extortion is a crime -- legally. If you can prove extortion, get the police and CPS onto it.
Or was that just mere ... name-calling? Emo? Bullshit?
We are just so never going to get this argument to some place productive, are we now?
[ 08. November 2010, 15:23: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's pretty much all we've got left in Britain these days.
I wonder why. Oh dear, oh yes, it was all that 1980's snobbishness about filthy workers, strikers, manufacturing as a whole. Hey, and you think repeating old mantras will help?
And here was me thinking the principal reason was we got priced out of the market by foreign firms.
quote:
We are just so never going to get this argument to some place productive, are we now?
Not while you insist on leaping to the worst possible interpretations of my posts, no.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And here was me thinking the principal reason was we got priced out of the market by foreign firms.
*snort* *snort*
Can you explain why Germany has higher wages, stronger trade unions, and better social security than Britain or the USA, and yet manages to be a bigger manufacturer and exporter than either the USA or Britain?
I mean, these are facts. Why don't we do some facts instead of various shibboleths?
Because if you can explain that well, we might actually get somewhere.
quote:
Not while you insist on leaping to the worst possible interpretations of my posts, no.
Funny. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You wanted to make it personal by first of all attributing every possible wrong motivation to strikers, every cliché in the book, you also tried getting personal with me without any need nor excuse, and you want to try claiming I put the worst possible interpretation on your remarks?
Funny. No, I do something far worse. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I quote your remarks exactly as given, and address them as you gave them.
And the reason why we don't get anywhere productive is because you're sloganeering, not examining. You damn one side, and the slogans are based on that predamnation. It's all too obviously one-sided, too lacking in facts, and too self-congratulatory.
But hey. We can keep on roasting the slogans. It doesn't need any real work.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Can you explain why Germany has higher wages, stronger trade unions, and better social security than Britain or the USA, and yet manages to be a bigger manufacturer and exporter than either the USA or Britain?
They make better stuff?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers.
I believe the Socialist position is that the workers should, as far as possible, be the owners, so that this sort of conflict would not arise.
All of a company's profits are generated by its employees. Being nice to one's employees is simply a recognition of how the company is able to exist.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Can you explain why Germany has higher wages, stronger trade unions, and better social security than Britain or the USA, and yet manages to be a bigger manufacturer and exporter than either the USA or Britain?
... and why we buy rail parts of Alstom, and electricity off Electricité de France ... France not exactly being known for its pacific and amenable trades unions ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What the worshippers of the Free Market (pbui) can't see is the inherent inequality of power. The union is an attempt to balance that. Can't have that, can we? Then the businessmen might have to treat their employees well, and for some reason treating the employees well is anathema.
Depends on the Union. Depends on the issue. Depends on the strike. This thread was started because of strikes on the London Underground. Last time I checked, tube drivers were paid somewhere around £40,000 per year (US$64,714.80), making them one of the best paid public sector workers. Kind of hard to sympathise with them in those circumstances (and that's before we get on to Bob Crow).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I didn't realise the tube workers were public sector. I thought transport was all privatised long ago. Is it only London where transport is still in the public sector?
Not that it should make any difference to salaries ... private and public sector workers shouldn't get paid different amounts for doing the same job.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
Victory to the RMT, quite frankly.
The strike is about manning levels and the subsequent affect on safety cover.
At the same time we have a public enquiry into the bus and tube bombings in '05. An event where we needed lots of people around to help the injured and trapped.
I buy an expensive season ticket and travel by tube a lot. I like the idea that if something bad happens, there will be well equipped and trained tube staff to help me and my fellow travelers. An automated ticket machine ain't going to help me much.
If you are going to have enough people around on stations, you might as well keep the ticket office open so they have something to do the rest of the time.
[ 11. November 2010, 16:10: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
