Speaking of trashing the recently deceased ...

[Speaker to Animals]

For context that I don't have's sake: To what extent can a union protect a lazy and incompetent worker from getting fired from his employer? In the most union-friendly of the US states, I mean?

I used to be in charge of the ISO-9000 and OSHA programs at a factory, so I spent a lot of time with the union side of the house.

Excellent workers who want to go above and beyond are peer-pressured by the rest to slow down, so as not to raise management's expectations. This excellent worker makes the same money, gets the same raise, as the guy doing less and actively pressuring the better employee to slow down.

It's all self-fulfilling. First day on the job, it's not your supervisor that tells you how much you are supposed to crank out; it's the team lead, also a union guy, who sets you straight on day 1. "We produce X and no more, because if you product X+1, management will expect X+1 everyday, and now we're working harder.

The slowest control the pace on a production line. As long as you are producing the minimum, you can't be fired.

Uh.. yeah.. that's the other side of the bargaining table.

If corporations weren't so shitty to people without unions, we wouldn't be here. They are just reciprocating the fun times perpetrated by corporations, really.

It's fucking funny to me that you see one group of people demonize the unions for shitty behavior and turn a blind eye to corporate shit behavior, and then the exact opposite from another group. Then those two groups go at each other to prove which is more shitty. My amusement is cheap, I suppose.

You guys should all unionize to drive up the price of my lulz.

[Kath]

Well, okay then.

So now, not only do I make terrible decisions because I lack a penis, but I also don't have any clue about how miserable I am at my company because I'm not in a union. I'm so glad that you, who has a penis, are here to explain to me how much I hate my job.

And here I am thinking I have the sweetest set up in the world, job wise. Great hours, great pay, interesting work....

But you are probably right. I'm surely miserable. After all, someone with a penis who has never met me, knows me better than myself.

This lack of a penis thing sucks, all of a sudden. I wish I had known what a miserable existence I was living before now.

Now I have to find a man to help me make better decisions. Oh wait.... I couldn't possibly have the agency to pick a decent guy. Hmmm... this is a problem. I'll discuss with Nerd. He may have some ideas.

[BjornP]

It's nothing but a few hours ago that I compared StA views on women to Islamic fundamentalists' in another thread, but even I have to wonder what part of his most recent post focused on your lack of a dick, Kath.

[Speaker to Animals]

Thank you, Kathy Newman. Carry on.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's nothing but a few hours ago that I compared StA views on women to Islamic fundamentalists' in another thread, but even I have to wonder what part of his most recent post focused on your lack of a dick, Kath.

Kathy Newman makes a lot of claims, few of which are true.

Ask her about the lobsters.

[Kath]

It's nothing but a few hours ago that I compared StA views on women to Islamic fundamentalists' in another thread, but even I have to wonder what part of his most recent post focused on your lack of a dick, Kath.

Sorry - legit didn't realize it was a different thread.

In this thread, viewtopic.php?f=63&t=3524&start=50 , STA says that if you don't have a penis, you are incapable of making good life choices. It's hilarious.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's nothing but a few hours ago that I compared StA views on women to Islamic fundamentalists' in another thread, but even I have to wonder what part of his most recent post focused on your lack of a dick, Kath.

Sorry - legit didn't realize it was a different thread.

In this thread, viewtopic.php?f=63&t=3524&start=50 , STA says that if you don't have a penis, you are incapable of making good life choices. It's hilarious.

That's why you get labeled Kathy Newman.

[DBTrek]

If unions produce 20% good for themselves (Amazon warehouse worker example regarding unpaid time entering and leaving facility) and 80% bad for everyone else (excluding non union labor from workforce, actively driving down and limiting productivity, making bad workers almost impossible to fire), what do we lose if they vanish?

Seems we lose little and gain much.
/shrug

... as to Bjorn’s points - Bjorn is in a union, so of course he benefits greatly from them. Just as monopolists benefit greatly from excluding market competition, so to do labor unions benefit greatly from excluding non-union labor from competition. I get why he likes them. I just find them to be a drag on the economy and useless (or detrimental) to anyone but union members.

[doc_loliday]

Unions did the country a solid when they first started. Got workers out of some seriously difficult times. Those days are gone, though - from my POV, Unions protect lazy and incompetent workers and hold back quality workers.

For context that I don't have's sake: To what extent can a union protect a lazy and incompetent worker from getting fired from his employer? In the most union-friendly of the US states, I mean?

Some of our school districts have special rooms for shitty teachers to just sit all day and do nothing, because it would be more expensive to try to fire them. They browse the internet all day every day, or sleep, year after year, collecting paychecks, and accruing pension benefits.

https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/city-pays ... ms-return/

[Kath]

Some of our school districts have special rooms for shitty teachers to just sit all day and do nothing, because it would be more expensive to try to fire them. They browse the internet all day every day, or sleep, year after year, collecting paychecks, and accruing pension benefits.

https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/city-pays ... ms-return/

I totally forgot about that. It was a TAL episode on this a few years ago.