USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
Just telling you what the law is, however its relatively new so time will tell if its effective. If employers are taking your word about ANYTHING, let me know and I'll make sure I don't have any investments or bank accounts with them.
Just telling you what the law is, however its relatively new so time will tell if its effective. If employers are taking your word about ANYTHING, let me know and I'll make sure I don't have any investments or bank accounts with them.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Just telling you what the law is, however its relatively new so time will tell if its effective. If employers are taking your word about ANYTHING, let me know and I'll make sure I don't have any investments or bank accounts with them.
Mr honesty that Mookie
In no one's defense but frequently the legal beagles just pay rather than go to court. The USDA Agency I worked for was well known for just writing a check rather than adjudicate.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
Read what I wrote again. It didn't click yet.
Read what I wrote again. It didn't click yet.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
I've never in 30 years of working had a discussion about prior salary -- it's irrelevant. I'm asked "how much do you want?" and I always counter "how much are you offering?" Negotiation 101.
I've never in 30 years of working had a discussion about prior salary -- it's irrelevant. I'm asked "how much do you want?" and I always counter "how much are you offering?" Negotiation 101.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Headhunters ask. F them.
Mookie tells them if it wasn’t for him standing there they’d be f’ed. Mookie gets them paid.
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
That's great, but employers are asking for a lot more nefarious reasons nowadays. If companies are operating at peak lean efficiency, a fancy way of saying they've cut to the bone on staffing to hand bigger bonuses to execs and dividends/stock buybacks to shareholders, they have to find savings somewhere. Part of that is to hire people cheaper than the people who left. I suspect these laws are meant to counter that practice especially as it pertains to women.
Think about it. You and I (and mookie depending on where he is at any particular moment) work in places where there's a lot of employers. Say you work in Buffalo, Cleveland or Detroit. You might have a little less bargaining power when someone tells you to take it or leave it. There's not a similar employer down the road, there's probably an abandoned building instead.
That's great, but employers are asking for a lot more nefarious reasons nowadays. If companies are operating at peak lean efficiency, a fancy way of saying they've cut to the bone on staffing to hand bigger bonuses to execs and dividends/stock buybacks to shareholders, they have to find savings somewhere. Part of that is to hire people cheaper than the people who left. I suspect these laws are meant to counter that practice especially as it pertains to women.
Think about it. You and I (and mookie depending on where he is at any particular moment) work in places where there's a lot of employers. Say you work in Buffalo, Cleveland or Detroit. You might have a little less bargaining power when someone tells you to take it or leave it. There's not a similar employer down the road, there's probably an abandoned building instead.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
That's great, but employers are asking for a lot more nefarious reasons nowadays. If companies are operating at peak lean efficiency, a fancy way of saying they've cut to the bone on staffing to hand bigger bonuses to execs and dividends/stock buybacks to shareholders, they have to find savings somewhere. Part of that is to hire people cheaper than the people who left. I suspect these laws are meant to counter that practice especially as it pertains to women.
Think about it. You and I (and mookie depending on where he is at any particular moment) work in places where there's a lot of employers. Say you work in Buffalo, Cleveland or Detroit. You might have a little less bargaining power when someone tells you to take it or leave it. There's not a similar employer down the road, there's probably an abandoned building instead.
So if joe gets laid off and Mary is hired at a lower wage, doesn’t that become THE prevailing wage and therefore not one that underpays her for similar work?
Just seems harder to reach as a goal unless we all become unionized
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
Completely agree. There has to be something else. RIght? Or maybe he tried to pressure them into doing it? I have no idea but just discussing it doesn't seem enough to resign.
Completely agree. There has to be something else. RIght? Or maybe he tried to pressure them into doing it? I have no idea but just discussing it doesn't seem enough to resign.
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
I too am curious to see how its all going to work out. I get the concept of what these places are trying to accomplish. One could also take a look on a companywide basis if the job Mary got hired for is being paid similarly in the same location, or if she's taking a 20% hit vs everyone else in a similar role.
So if joe gets laid off and Mary is hired at a lower wage, doesn’t that become THE prevailing wage and therefore not one that underpays her for similar work?
Just seems harder to reach as a goal unless we all become unionized
I too am curious to see how its all going to work out. I get the concept of what these places are trying to accomplish. One could also take a look on a companywide basis if the job Mary got hired for is being paid similarly in the same location, or if she's taking a 20% hit vs everyone else in a similar role.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
The solution to all of which is unionization. Without collective bargaining the few rich employers can always play the many poor employees against each other. That's why ownership tries to crush and smear unions wherever they can.
That's great, but employers are asking for a lot more nefarious reasons nowadays. If companies are operating at peak lean efficiency, a fancy way of saying they've cut to the bone on staffing to hand bigger bonuses to execs and dividends/stock buybacks to shareholders, they have to find savings somewhere. Part of that is to hire people cheaper than the people who left. I suspect these laws are meant to counter that practice especially as it pertains to women.
Think about it. You and I (and mookie depending on where he is at any particular moment) work in places where there's a lot of employers. Say you work in Buffalo, Cleveland or Detroit. You might have a little less bargaining power when someone tells you to take it or leave it. There's not a similar employer down the road, there's probably an abandoned building instead.
The solution to all of which is unionization. Without collective bargaining the few rich employers can always play the many poor employees against each other. That's why ownership tries to crush and smear unions wherever they can.
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
Like it or not, employees are a cost that has to be monitored. If as an employer you are not willing to see if you can get an employee for 90% of what you might have been willing to pay, well then you'd be better suited to sitting on your (the employee) side of the table, because you aren't going to last on this side of the table.
As an employer who has hired many, many employees over the past 30 years, I always ask what they were making at their last job and what they expect to make with me. It's information.
Like it or not, employees are a cost that has to be monitored. If as an employer you are not willing to see if you can get an employee for 90% of what you might have been willing to pay, well then you'd be better suited to sitting on your (the employee) side of the table, because you aren't going to last on this side of the table.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
Of course, which is why labor has to negotiate collectively. Ownership is just as much a prisoner of the system as the worker. It's like slavery: in a society in which slavery is legal ethical employers who hire and pay their workers will be driven out of business. Therefore, government has to make slavery illegal so ethical employers will not be threatened by slaver employers.
Wages are exactly the same.
Of course, which is why labor has to negotiate collectively. Ownership is just as much a prisoner of the system as the worker. It's like slavery: in a society in which slavery is legal ethical employers who hire and pay their workers will be driven out of business. Therefore, government has to make slavery illegal so ethical employers will not be threatened by slaver employers.
Wages are exactly the same.
rufus
rock and roller
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
I'm assuming he wanted to cut out the middle man in the process.
I'm assuming he wanted to cut out the middle man in the process.
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
The problem is bigger than just having robust union representation (which I fully support). The problem is the concentration of high paying, high skilled jobs in the same handful of places.
Used to be manufacturing was done all over the country, and it was easier to standardize a union wage for work say building cars whether you were in Flint or Buffalo or Gary. Nowadays if you're in high tech, biotech, finance, energy, medical research, etc -most likely you're in a cluster with a bunch of other people in the same field. That gives you bargaining power, because you can easily get a job at a competitor without having to relocate and those industries aren't trying to complete on cost of labor.
If you're not in one of these places, and you work in a one industry or one company region, you have little bargaining power. A union in this case would help you achieve a livable wage, but would struggle to get you to earn as much as your high flying counterparts who are being fought over by multiple companies in the same place. This is the problem of stagnating wages, which also prevents a remedy for income disparity. If Kep gets canned by Citigroup in NYC, he can take his act to JP Morgan. If Kep gets canned in Toledo from the one car manufacturing plant left, where does he go? Nowhere, so most likely he puts up with miniscule pay increases because he's happy to just have a job.
The problem is bigger than just having robust union representation (which I fully support). The problem is the concentration of high paying, high skilled jobs in the same handful of places.
Used to be manufacturing was done all over the country, and it was easier to standardize a union wage for work say building cars whether you were in Flint or Buffalo or Gary. Nowadays if you're in high tech, biotech, finance, energy, medical research, etc -most likely you're in a cluster with a bunch of other people in the same field. That gives you bargaining power, because you can easily get a job at a competitor without having to relocate and those industries aren't trying to complete on cost of labor.
If you're not in one of these places, and you work in a one industry or one company region, you have little bargaining power. A union in this case would help you achieve a livable wage, but would struggle to get you to earn as much as your high flying counterparts who are being fought over by multiple companies in the same place. This is the problem of stagnating wages, which also prevents a remedy for income disparity. If Kep gets canned by Citigroup in NYC, he can take his act to JP Morgan. If Kep gets canned in Toledo from the one car manufacturing plant left, where does he go? Nowhere, so most likely he puts up with miniscule pay increases because he's happy to just have a job.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
While sometimes true, also exaggerated to serve the propaganda interests of ownership (who were themselves often hand in hand with organized crime).
The unions declined because mass factory labor declined. We have yet to invent a strong union movement for the cubical farm labor that most people now are. Unionizing across that entire sector would give people real power.
The old joke is that business used to serve owners first and employees second, and now they serve owners first, shareholders second, and workers third. This began in the 70s and really picked up speed when the federal government under Reagan was so anti-union.
The owners in the 50s and 60s would have f-cked their workers too -- they would have been forced to the minute one of their competitors did. The only thing that stopped them was the unions -- they couldn't mistreat labor because it would strike and cost them dearly. Once that threat was removed owners reduced their employees to garbage while stagnating wages, exactly as was the case before the unions in the 19th century. It has to be this way, because nice guys finish last. The government has to stop all owners from exploiting their workers or all owners will either exploit their workers or go bankrupt.
While sometimes true, also exaggerated to serve the propaganda interests of ownership (who were themselves often hand in hand with organized crime).
The unions declined because mass factory labor declined. We have yet to invent a strong union movement for the cubical farm labor that most people now are. Unionizing across that entire sector would give people real power.
The old joke is that business used to serve owners first and employees second, and now they serve owners first, shareholders second, and workers third. This began in the 70s and really picked up speed when the federal government under Reagan was so anti-union.
The owners in the 50s and 60s would have f-cked their workers too -- they would have been forced to the minute one of their competitors did. The only thing that stopped them was the unions -- they couldn't mistreat labor because it would strike and cost them dearly. Once that threat was removed owners reduced their employees to garbage while stagnating wages, exactly as was the case before the unions in the 19th century. It has to be this way, because nice guys finish last. The government has to stop all owners from exploiting their workers or all owners will either exploit their workers or go bankrupt.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: DC Sexual Assault Thread: We needed one...
Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/trent-franks-sex-surrogacy-impregnate-287808
Buh-bye Franks.
Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/trent-franks-sex-surrogacy-impregnate-287808
Buh-bye Franks.