- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
----------------
On 4/30/2003 12:00:28 PM WXGuesser wrote:
Bob:
That is just simply an application of the Golden Rule. Them that has the gold makes the rules, or in this case, takes the rewards. This is America, Bob!
Funny, I thought we at least claimed to be a Democracy.
We are always ready to blame someone else for the problems and take credit for the work of others.
Isnt that what the executives have been doing for years?
There is no sense of personal responsibility in this country anymore, and anyone who shows even the slightest hint of actually taking responsibility for their actions is immediately played for a sucker by everyone and anyone, or run out of town on a rail (ala Don Carty). Excuse me for being so cynical, but I'm just calling it like I see it.
A golden rail that is. Poor poor Don. Maybe we should take up a collection for him. Carty took responsibilty for being deceptive after it was revealed what he did. Was there much choice?
AA did not have to come to the unions; they stated the financing was all lined up. If they were truly the heartless thieves you imply them to be, they would simply have filed. Braniff comparisons, anyone?
Yes they did if they wanted to abrogate the agreement. Who had more to lose in BK? The workers or management? You are wrong there.
And FYI it's Bonnie and Clyde.
OK
You mean kind of like it is in the rest of the world?
Maybe we need more unions.
Bob, I know you are very good at what you do, and that you have exceptional skills. Do you think that if your work environment was non-union and the possibility for promotions existed, that you would have been promoted into a better paying position?
I think that the position I have should warrant a remunerative salary.
Unions have both their good and bad points. They do protect the rights, pay and benefits of their members from the whims of management. But they also force management to keep the bad with the good.
Wrong. Management retains the right to get rid of bad workers. They choose not to exercise that right. Are you claiming that all non-union workers are good workers? I've worked both, and that is not the case, just the tactics are different.
Do you think that employees who deliberately perform at less than their best, or whose work is substandard should be fired? Do you think their should be incentives for going "above and beyond the call of duty"? You can't have both guarantees (union) and incentives (non-union). You have to choose.
I think that when a fair agreement has been struck under fair conditions workers should do their best, however if the company seeks to use intimidation and impose unfair conditions workers should deliver what they are given. If the company seeks to pay out the least amount possible then why shouldnt the workers do the least amount possible?
And my head is very clearly not where you believe it to be. The only way to "respond" to an ad hominem attack is with an attack in kind. Sorry, but I'm not five years old.
TANSTAAFL
----------------
On 4/30/2003 12:00:28 PM WXGuesser wrote:
----------------
On 4/30/2003 11:18:03 AM Bob Owens wrote:
However when ever a station does well management gets the credit, when it does poorly the workers get the blame. So you tell me," Which way is it?".
I did not get your response to that.
----------------
On 4/30/2003 11:18:03 AM Bob Owens wrote:
However when ever a station does well management gets the credit, when it does poorly the workers get the blame. So you tell me," Which way is it?".
I did not get your response to that.
----------------
Bob:
That is just simply an application of the Golden Rule. Them that has the gold makes the rules, or in this case, takes the rewards. This is America, Bob!
Funny, I thought we at least claimed to be a Democracy.
We are always ready to blame someone else for the problems and take credit for the work of others.
Isnt that what the executives have been doing for years?
There is no sense of personal responsibility in this country anymore, and anyone who shows even the slightest hint of actually taking responsibility for their actions is immediately played for a sucker by everyone and anyone, or run out of town on a rail (ala Don Carty). Excuse me for being so cynical, but I'm just calling it like I see it.
A golden rail that is. Poor poor Don. Maybe we should take up a collection for him. Carty took responsibilty for being deceptive after it was revealed what he did. Was there much choice?
AA did not have to come to the unions; they stated the financing was all lined up. If they were truly the heartless thieves you imply them to be, they would simply have filed. Braniff comparisons, anyone?
Yes they did if they wanted to abrogate the agreement. Who had more to lose in BK? The workers or management? You are wrong there.
And FYI it's Bonnie and Clyde.
OK
----------------
On 4/30/2003 11:18:03 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Yes, but in my chosen profession that can only be done with small fly by night carriers. Even in non-union carriers like Delta, pay rates are pretty much non-negotiable.
----------------
On 4/30/2003 11:18:03 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Yes, but in my chosen profession that can only be done with small fly by night carriers. Even in non-union carriers like Delta, pay rates are pretty much non-negotiable.
----------------
You mean kind of like it is in the rest of the world?
Maybe we need more unions.
Bob, I know you are very good at what you do, and that you have exceptional skills. Do you think that if your work environment was non-union and the possibility for promotions existed, that you would have been promoted into a better paying position?
I think that the position I have should warrant a remunerative salary.
Unions have both their good and bad points. They do protect the rights, pay and benefits of their members from the whims of management. But they also force management to keep the bad with the good.
Wrong. Management retains the right to get rid of bad workers. They choose not to exercise that right. Are you claiming that all non-union workers are good workers? I've worked both, and that is not the case, just the tactics are different.
Do you think that employees who deliberately perform at less than their best, or whose work is substandard should be fired? Do you think their should be incentives for going "above and beyond the call of duty"? You can't have both guarantees (union) and incentives (non-union). You have to choose.
I think that when a fair agreement has been struck under fair conditions workers should do their best, however if the company seeks to use intimidation and impose unfair conditions workers should deliver what they are given. If the company seeks to pay out the least amount possible then why shouldnt the workers do the least amount possible?
And my head is very clearly not where you believe it to be. The only way to "respond" to an ad hominem attack is with an attack in kind. Sorry, but I'm not five years old.
TANSTAAFL
----------------
06 PM desertfox wrote:
