LawnGuyLandSparky

Most of the bad residing on the other side.

Bob Badger

Thats a great sound bite and if it was as simple as that anyone would agree.

But it ain't that simple.

When your off for that six months are you still paying dues? Subtract that from your 1000 hrs of $49. per hr.

When your off for that six months who pays your health care? Subtract that from your 1000 hrs of $49. per hr.

When your off for that six months do you still get money added to your retirement account? (I really do not know the answer to this one)

I am sure there are more examples if we stop to think about them.

__________________
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction and Maintenance
MA, RI, CT

LawnGuyLandSparky

There's a LOT more "ignorant" fueled by "powerlessness" on the nonunion side. From my experience there isn't ONE... not ONE person who calls themselves an electrician (or wants to) who does not WANT to do the BEST job possible... the stumbling block is always the cheap greedy or ill-prepared contractor who doesn't allow it.

Plenty of carpenter hacks, I've yet to meet a electrician hack.

brian john

LGLS:

That is just not true I have seen plenty of hacks, lazy men and pure slobs in both fields that had the best of everything to work with. Just as contractors are not all the best workers are the same, some good, so OK and some lazy hacks.

Quote:

Plenty of carpenter hacks, I've yet to meet a electrician hack.

I have seen their work in at least 15 states I have worked in or inspected work in (including NYC, OMG the piss poor quality work and attitudes I saw there rival any where I have worked). Carpenters are no different than electricians we do not have the hold on quality.

__________________
I void warranty's

LawnGuyLandSparky

Thats a great sound bite and if it was as simple as that anyone would agree.

But it ain't that simple.

When your off for that six months are you still paying dues? Subtract that from your 1000 hrs of $49. per hr.

OK. And then it's tax deductable, so may I add it back in?

When your off for that six months who pays your health care? Subtract that from your 1000 hrs of $49. per hr.

Health bennies continue for 6 months beyond any layoff... then you can pay them yourself. But at least we got them. The local knows suspending them wouldn't save much because you will be back after a layoff, and you'll bring any health issues right along with you. (Pay me now or pay me later.)

When your off for that six months do you still get money added to your retirement account? (I really do not know the answer to this one)

IF you have enough hours to earn the pension credit, you made it. At least we HAVE a pension, though I expect future negotiations will probably do away with the defined benifit plans. The Int'l manages 2 pensions for JW's, my local augments this with another 2, and then there's the 401k, which we control. ( www.ibenefitcenter.com )

Currently, pensioners take home about $6500.00 a month, not including whatever their 401k provides, which is going to vary depending on degree of participation and the outcome of personal fund selections and payout options.

I am sure there are more examples if we stop to think about them.

westernexplorer

Originally Posted by westernexplorer
The 50/50 call back, use to be for every man taken off the books by the number, the contractors had the right to call someone out of order by name to work a job. It is wormy as hell, but the whole country has become pretty wormy in my view......

Quote: Brian John
Yeah So I can get two slackers (bench warmers) or a guy that I know is good and a bench warmer. Promoting a better work force. NOT.
__________________
I void warranty's


Brian John,

So are you implying by your quote above that anyone that comes from the hall that you can't HAND pick is a lazy slacker.....? Talk about blanket statements..... You need to start smelling that stuff you are shoveling. Your problem is that I have worked in the Union and Non-Union for many years and travelled and worked all over this country from California to New Jersey. Your snake oil pitch, doesn't work on me......LOL.

You still have not addressed the real issues, you continue to duck and dodge. I want to here you say, that a MAJORITY, which means MOST, for slow people like you. That Employers in America support and enjoy complying with all the labor laws, like overtime pay, family medical leave, workers compensation, unemployement insurance and the like and wouldn't overeturn anyone of those laws if given the chance...... Say it with a straight face.....

Be careful when you open your mouth, so as not to insert your foot............LOL.

knowshorts

LGLS,
Could you please do me a favor and pay just the interest on my house. It's around $6000 a year and it's 100% tax deductible. Thanks.

Explorer,
You need to remember there is a big difference between a contractor and an employee. Contractors took a huge financial leap and went into business. Employees just want to show up. Of course, contractors want to get the most value for their employees. Contractors will pay top dollar to guys who make them top dollar. The guys that don't cut it, will not get raises just because its June 1st. It is the American way to have different pay scales for different people. Employees will only get paid what they think their worth. If they are getting underpaid or treated like crap (by the examples you stated above), then they should move on.

westernexplorer

Knowshorts,
I don't disagree with what you have said. I agree that we should reward work. I also, understand the difference between an employer and an employee. I don't even blame employers for fighting for there positions or what they believe in. However, alot of employer's want it to be one-sided. It's ok for them to ban together, just not the workers. Would you say that is not true....? Would you say that most employers, if given the chance would over turn many labor laws in America...?

knowshorts

And a lot of employees want it to be one-sided.

I would disagree. What labor laws are you referring to? I would say most employers were labor at one time, too. The only time I have really heard of employers try to change labor laws, is when CA went to a 40 hour work week before overtime, rather than after 8 hours. Employers (even large corporations) don't want to dismantle labor laws, they just want their people to produce. If work was being done, without all the bitching and moaning that goes on by lazy, entitled, American workers, do you really think we would have lost millions of jobs to Mexico, India, China, etc?

I have heard union guys making $70+ package bitch and complain because they find out their employer is billing out at $125 an hour. They have no idea the costs to run a business.

westernexplorer

Quote: Knowshorts
If work was being done, without all the bitching and moaning that goes on by lazy, entitled, American workers, do you really think we would have lost millions of jobs to Mexico, India, China, etc?



You are comparing the Most industrialized nation on the earth to the Third World. We lost those jobs because of taking down the trade tariff's we had in place from the conception of the country......Yes we make more money than people in Mexico and India, we also live in better homes, drive better cars and have clean drinking water.

Now if you want to turn this country into the Third World, we can do that, in fact we are doing that, giving tax breaks to companies for moving overseas and continuing to shift the taxes from the rich onto the backs of the working people.......From 1933 to 1981 the rich people of this country paid between 68% to 89% tax on income over 200K earned in a year. We won a World War, Fought two other major conflicts, Korea and Vietnam, put a man on the moon, cured polio, built the interstate highway system coast to coast, ended CHILD LABOR and enacted MAJOR LABOR protections, like the Wagner Act. And Business's didn't leave the United States, would you like to know why.....? FEAR......of the communist's taking there factory's after they built them in another country AND trade tariff's when they tried to re-import the cheap labor goods...........

To hear guys like you tell it, we should eliminate all taxes on business and the wealthy and the roads will suddenly get paved, the police will hire more officers, the schools will have more money......Supply side economics didn't work not when Reagan, not when Bush, not when Clinton, not when Bush again or when Obama tries it....... Supply side economic's is a failure and it is destroying this country and our way of life.......

westernexplorer

Bush Administration Ignores Common Sense in Rolling Back Contractor Responsibility Standards

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Reece Rushing, 202-234-8494

April 4, 2001

Say you are the government. You are considering two contractors, equal in every way except that one has repeatedly violated environmental laws. Common sense says you contract with the law-abiding company. But then, you wouldn’t be the Bush administration.

On April 3, the administration published notice in the Federal Register announcing that it intends to suspend and eventually repeal a rule that promotes greater accountability for federal contractors – to make sure they comply with important public protections. Specifically, the rule instructs government contracting officers to look at a bidding company’s compliance with the law (including tax laws, labor laws, employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws and consumer protection laws) before awarding taxpayer dollars.

Contracting officers need to take greater care in distributing federal dollars than they have in the past. According to the General Accounting Office, 80 firms that violated the National Labor Relations Act received more than $23 billion in contracts in Fiscal Year 1993. In FY 1994, $38 billion was awarded to 261 federal contractors that were cited by OSHA for 5,121 violations, many of which were both serious and willful.

“A more careful examination of a prospective contractor's record and an up-front determination on compliance with the law would help ensure that taxpayer money is spent responsibly,” said Gary D. Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, as well as chairman of Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a broad-based coalition of hundreds of public interest organizations. “It seems clear, however, that the administration is less concerned about its obligations to taxpayers – who the president claims to care so much about – and more concerned about the powerful corporate interests that made repeal of this rule a top priority.

“Of course, this is not a complete surprise. Since his first day in office, President Bush has been waging war on health, safety, consumer, and environmental protections. From ergonomics standards and safe drinking water to medical privacy and global warming to drilling and mining on public lands, this president has made clear that he stands with corporate interests, no matter the price.”

As for the contractor responsibility rule, which was completed at the end of the Clinton administration after years of work, the business lobby has dishonestly argued that it amounts to “blacklisting” – that companies could be barred from receiving federal contracts with no due process.

“This argument is completely hollow,” Bass said. “It serves to distort the debate, because they know they can’t win on the merits. Each determination under the rule is made on a case-by-case basis for the contract in question, and does not constitute ‘debarment’ for all federal contracts. In other words, a company that is denied one contract on the basis of its legal track record is still eligible to be considered for another federal contract. This rule does not create a blacklist, however much the opponents insist it does.”

As for due process, the claims here are equally dubious. The rule requires contracting officers to coordinate adverse determinations with agency legal counsel, to notify bidders if they are found non-responsible, and to provide the basis for that determination. If a company disagrees with that determination, the Federal Acquisition Regulation already provides for an appeal process (as directed in Executive Order 12979, Agency Procurement Protests). Moreover, the rule also makes clear that in making a judgement, contracting officers should give the greatest weight to convictions or civil judgments rendered against the prospective contractor in the preceding three years.

In its Federal Register notice announcing its intent to repeal the rule, the Bush administration ignored industry’s cries of blacklisting, and instead argued in vague terms that it would be impossible to implement and too burdensome on industry. Again, these are not serious arguments – particularly when considered next to the benefits of ensuring the government doesn’t contract with chronic lawbreakers. To facilitate implementation, the rule requires bidding companies to disclose whether they have been found liable for violating the law within the preceding three years. This minimal disclosure requirement – which is the only “burden” placed on industry under the rule – makes it easy for a government contracting officer to make the necessary determination. Implementation is not the real issue.

“The common arguments used against the contractor responsibility rule seek to dodge the core question: Should we consider a company’s compliance with the law in awarding taxpayer dollars?”, Bass said. “Common sense says yes. The business lobby and its allies in the Bush administration clearly believe the answer is no. They just don’t want to have to defend that position. I can’t say I blame them.”

By the way, I don't believe President Obama is going to fix this either, he is getting alot of money from the same people as Bush was.....

oldman

communism doesn't work either....

westernexplorer

I never said it did, I just said that is what kept those companies in America, not low taxes.....

oldman

you really believe that? ok....

brian john

Not a blanket a fact. There is a difference.

No foot in mouth here, my bread and butter is on the table based on who works for me I try to hire the best, I DO NOT WANT A RANDOM GUY from any where working for me in a top position. I want to pick my employees. And for 24 years I have.

A small concept we call freedom.

I am a union contractor that pays above scale, offers MORE benefits than required by the hall, pay higher overtime for holidays than contractually required (triple time and a half), give a minimum 8 hours OT when men work any Saturday, Sunday or holiday no matter how many hours they work above 4, Travel time for all off hour work, when men are out sick they get sick may, I have covered up to two months sick leave, wife have a baby two weeks, death in the family one week, plus two weeks vacation (not contractually required) and holidays above the hall mandated, any education classes you feel will help you not just what the hall offers, any tools you want and not that it matters now but we were one of the first contractors to give AC in all our work trucks . Yeah I am just a big ****.

I am not laying this into just ANYBODY's hands I want and need the best and for the most part I have them

__________________
I void warranty's

drsparky

You can't possibly have the best, I don't work for you.

__________________
"Pay attention son, this is for your own good." - Foghorn Leghorn

knowshorts

If work ever dries up in hot and sunny socal, I want to go work for the man with two first names. He offers a nice deal. I don't do drugs, and have no arrests, charges or convictions. I like to sleep in though, so I won't be able to start till 8am and I would like to get off at 3pm. And I would like a paid lunch.

Minuteman

News Flash: Cali is broke, Arnold said so.

__________________
My son is one of "The Few, the Proud, the Infidel."
Sgt. Mickey, USMC 0311
Deployed with the 11th MEU

knowshorts

Actually I am all in favor of taxes. But I think everyone should have to pay their fair share. Because of the business I get extra tax relieve, but I still pay a lot more than an employee. Yet my better half gets money back every year. Not a refund, she gets back more than she puts in. Is that fair? I bust my ass everyday to make my business grow and she sits in her little air conditioned office all day and gets a little bonus from the FTB and US Treasury. I don't mind paying my share, I just don't want to pay someone elses share.

westernexplorer

If what you say is true, you are the exception and not the rule. If what you say is true, then I commend you for being a socially responsible employer....