Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
Blowfish;
Please find me ONE situation where a union-shop employer is allowed to bring in temporary, lower wage workers to fill in peak demand. You will never find such a situation. Rather, the employer is forced to deploy the union workers on OT, at a premium. How is that situation different than this union trying to fulfill its “peak demand” for picketers?
As I said, hypocrisy.
By the way: do you really think you advance your argument by calling an opponent ignorant? The way I see it, when someone calls me a name, it is an admission that they can’t argue the issue on its merits.
“Then you may have to go through with the interview. And you never know, even if you say no in the end, perhaps they’ll keep you in mind if another position more suited to you opens up?”
Not kidding, I always has a little dream of can I pull out the big miracle story we hear of folks progressing from Mail room to the top hence the interest to work in the mail room
“Did you see the story in today’s WSJ about unions hiring non-union unemployed workers at the minimum wage to staff their picket lines?”
You guys are so ignorant about this stuff. Did you think there was a union for picket-line workers? You think hiring unemployed workers for a temporary min-wage gig is “taking advantage” of them? Huh?
Cobble, in a normal econ, unemployed label carries a small negative tone – unless your firm filed ch 11, part of massive division closing,… so when they can choose, they pick the employed vs. unemployed who might’ve been fired for cause. in this econ, it should be lesser of an issue – ie tons of folks are getting laid off simply cause firms need to lower cost structure vs. particular folks for cause or any pecular reason.
I’m not anti-biker, but I don’t think that was much of a bomb from fsrq. pretty mild rhetoric on a bike war thread. Nothing new for bikers to respond to. Wht’s the point of writing “NO WE’RE NOT!” I think it will go largely ignored.
P.S. Too bad fsrq didn’t meet you in your younger biking/thrift shop days.
P.P.S. Mopar, if you are around, I sent you some summer reading.
Blowfish;
Please find me ONE situation where a union-shop employer is allowed to bring in temporary, lower wage workers to fill in peak demand. You will never find such a situation. Rather, the employer is forced to deploy the union workers on OT, at a premium. How is that situation different than this union trying to fulfill its “peak demand” for picketers?
As I said, hypocrisy.
By the way: do you really think you advance your argument by calling an opponent ignorant? The way I see it, when someone calls me a name, it is an admission that they can’t argue the issue on its merits.
“cobble, you’re hired.”
Be still my heart!! You have no idea how much I need/live to hear these words.
“Then you may have to go through with the interview. And you never know, even if you say no in the end, perhaps they’ll keep you in mind if another position more suited to you opens up?”
This is what I’m saying.
Jinx, Cobbble.
Not kidding, I always has a little dream of can I pull out the big miracle story we hear of folks progressing from Mail room to the top hence the interest to work in the mail room
cobble, you’re hired. Now, if I only had a job for you and money to pay you with. Details, details.
“Did you see the story in today’s WSJ about unions hiring non-union unemployed workers at the minimum wage to staff their picket lines?”
You guys are so ignorant about this stuff. Did you think there was a union for picket-line workers? You think hiring unemployed workers for a temporary min-wage gig is “taking advantage” of them? Huh?
Cobble, in a normal econ, unemployed label carries a small negative tone – unless your firm filed ch 11, part of massive division closing,… so when they can choose, they pick the employed vs. unemployed who might’ve been fired for cause. in this econ, it should be lesser of an issue – ie tons of folks are getting laid off simply cause firms need to lower cost structure vs. particular folks for cause or any pecular reason.
benson,
I’m not anti-biker, but I don’t think that was much of a bomb from fsrq. pretty mild rhetoric on a bike war thread. Nothing new for bikers to respond to. Wht’s the point of writing “NO WE’RE NOT!” I think it will go largely ignored.
P.S. Too bad fsrq didn’t meet you in your younger biking/thrift shop days.
P.P.S. Mopar, if you are around, I sent you some summer reading.
“OVER-THE-MOON”
In case anyone is unclear…that would be ME!