I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to ta... err..... um...
{crickets}
...say, who won Dancing With The Stars between commercials for Viagra and Soma this week?
Posted on 11/24/2010 10:49:56 PM PST by Robwin
Jesse Jackson isn't the only activist that can use corporate boycotts for political purposes. Starting next year, the huge Tea Party organizer FreedomWorks will urge supporters to punish huge corporations like General Electric and Johnson and Johnson for backing President Obama's progressive agenda.
In an exclusive review for Whispers of their plan, FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe says: "Tea Party activists are willing to tackle progressive CEOs just as they tackled progressive politicians. Judging by the results of the midterm elections, progressive CEOs should buckle up, because Tea Party activists are going to give them a very bumpy ride."
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.usnews.com ...
“Yea, like China, where unions are illegal. Sorry, I don’t understand how a conservative could be against people’s right to meet, form a group and then seek improved working conditions and pay.”
What is it that you don’t like about quitting a job you don’t like and going out and finding one you do. There’s no right to strike a business (whether small or large)with the intent to damage it’s production and profit in the name of “improved working conditions and pay.”
Think God I live in Texas where it is a right to work state.
By the way...I am a business owner who cleaned the toilets and mowed the grass in front of the business while managing and producing income at the same time. I would gladly fire any employee who refused to do the same...instantly!
Unions are the blood suckers who have drained their productive host and now look for something else to suck the blood from, for example...the taxpayers through government jobs.
Yeah - these patriotic corps only pushed cap n trade, obamacare etc.
No thanks.
An institutional equities trader in Los Angeles.
Who knew? As one who has flunked a series 7 test twice by one question, I can appreciate what you do.
Bump that...conservatives should keep a SHARP eye on Dick Armey...
The communists in our public schools have done more damage than 'corporate' America...
There's a big difference between tackling progressive CEOs and targeting Corporate America as the title suggests.
Progressives have NO business in the corporate world in the first place (look out, Progressive Insurance). They seek to gain sales through government coercion rather than by competing honestly. We should all go after and expose those corrupt "public-private partnership" collusion pacts because whenever government and the big boys conspire, it's always to the detriment of 'we, the people'.
I would support an effort to target corporations that enrich foreign countries by moving our jobs overseas while calling themselves “American Companies” because the CEO’s have mansions somewhere in the country. We have to return the manufacturing base to this country if we are going to survive economically.
Unfortunately, your understanding on how unions operate is a little lacking. I spent 11 years in a closed-shop union and believe me, it's not about improving working conditions nor is it about pay. If it's about anything, it's about getting a free ride by turning the job into a form of welfare.
Maybe I misunderstand your point but are you saying unions should be illegal? Forgive me if I misunderstood you. It was a very short sentence you put up and I may be reading more into it. If you mean adjusting the laws, that is a topic for discussion I suppose.
I can't speak for the poster to which you are responding, but I will say this about unions - I'm perfectly fine if people want to form groups and operate as a group. But I'm strongly against mandatory union membership as it is presented in many northern states. When I was in a union, you either joined the union or didn't get the job. There was no "open-shop" rule, or any "right-to-work" rule. If the union wanted to strike, you had to strike with them, even if you didn't believe in the cause.
And, I don't think I should have to mention that the unions are basically fee collectors for the democrat party. They collect dues from ALL members and donate exclusively to democrats, to the dismay of at least 1/3 of their forced membership.
Fact is unionism is, by definition, a form of communism. It's a "one-size-fits-all" method of distributing pay that rewards the lazy and punishes the productive by not matching pay to the worth of the employee to the employer. In a union, the janitor makes almost as much money as a machinist. And, a machinist that can produce 20 products makes the exact same pay as one that produces 10.
One need not look farther than GM to see what unionism does to a company. The incentive to be productive has long left the American auto industry, and a failed company is the result.
This appears to be nothing more than a provocative article connecting the words 'tea party' with an act more commonly related to the reactionary and sometimes violent left.
Corporate America needs (as ALL business(es) in the country), a tax moratorium.
Wilkow suggests 10 years.
Our biggest problem are the taxes and laws that prevent industry from being built.
We don't make steel anymore ... why ?
Remove taxes and regulations, build factories that produce a needed/wanted product, put 'em on the shelves and AMERICANS will buy American because they are making the money to afford it.
I think we stop short with our logic when we say we can't afford to pay the workers ... or can't afford to buy the product.
The "I can't afford"ness is (IMO) the result of taxes and regulations.
Shrink government by doing away with EPA type entities and LET US WORK !!!!
Build, baby BUILD !!!
They say that they are, but they have some big supporters in corporate America. GE, Progressive Insurance, Johnson & Johnson, there's quite a long list where the CEO and corporate "leadership" is in bed with the left, reaping the rewards of selective regulation that serves only to limit competition.
Democrats love the kinds of monopolies that they can control from Washington.
CITIGROUP!
What I was thinking as well, that there are so many tentacles including on the GE Capital Financing End.
A better approach might me to gain control of enough voting stock to dump the officers and replace the board members. The key is to register stock owners who are TP supporters.
Two things with the above: one is that most corporate control is held with a small percentage of stock like 20-25% of a controlling interest, two is that is TP can challenge controlling interest they can force present controllers to buy more stock and drive the price up. These things would have the effect of driving controlling money (think ruling class would sell off their bonds) into their equities to retain control. TP could profit and ruling class would be left holding the bag. All sorts of games could be played to wreak havoc on progressive boards.
The communist unions are part of the mob. They are both running federal/state/locas governments and destroying industry in the US.
We need to kill their leaders and convert the rank and file to Christianity.
local
I agree with you about right to work and the counterproductive nature of the labor unions, but that doesn't mean that “improved working conditions” and "best interests of your company" are mutually exclusive.
Most guys I know, working in IT, are required to pay for all business expenses themselves (this includes travel, accommodation and IT equipment purchases). Same for me. Nearly all the time, this process is perfectly fine but in one company I worked for, we routinely had to wait up to twelve weeks for reimbursement of our expenses. Time and time again we complained about it, and nothing was done.
One unfortunate chap had to wait two months for them to reimburse him a staggering $70k that he'd racked up on a sixty day office refit. By the time they finally paid him back he was into arrears on his mortgage, living on beans on toast, his savings were wiped out, he was being fined for going over his overdraft limit, his credit card was maxed out and his wife had moved out.
He ended up suing them to get them to pay back the charges as well as the capital expenditure. And, within three months of that debacle, he went to work for a rival and took the five most experienced engineers with him.
Guess what sweetened the deal for them: a GUARANTEED 14 day maximum wait for out-of-pocket business expenses to be reimbursed, and a company Amex for hotels, flights and procurement of IT equipment at short notice. That is all it took for them to jump ship. Same wages, near-enough same pension, no bonuses... the ONLY difference on paper was the expenses policy.
The fallout from that incident was most unprecedented: the HR manager got fired for not doing anything to prevent the exodus despite it being rather predictable in light of the sheer number of complaints being made about people being pushed into mortgage arrears by the tardy reimbursement of expenses.
The Finance manager got fired because the expenses system was the fault of his department and happened under his watch. And a few months later, the IT manager got fired because the service levels went through the floor due to lack of suitably experienced staff.
The company lost tens of thousands of dollars in BILLABLE downtime, due to outages taking longer to fix.
Fines were incurred because deadlines were missed.
And so on.
Here's a question for you: with the benefit of hindsight, if that had been your company, would you have preferred that the individual had walked, or that the IT department (and other affected departments) had banded together and taken industrial action - perhaps a "work to rule" - until the expenses system got fixed? Bearing in mind that in this particular case, the latter would've saved them millions of dollars over the former.
You said: “Most guys I know, working in IT, are required to pay for all business expenses themselves (this includes travel, accommodation and IT equipment purchases). Same for me.”
Sounds to me that you were not a direct company employee but a statuary employee. IT personnel are normally carried as a sub-contractor. Federal withholding for income tax is not withheld by the employer. Social Security and Medicaid are. If that is the case, you are considered a statuary employee. If not, you are considered an employee. If you fall under the guise of a contractor (as defined by the IRS ladder of qualifications) you are a contractor and are responsible for your own actions. That means the maintenance of your accounts receivables. If the company did to pay on terms then that would not be cured by a union action nor would it be corrected by holding the employer hostage. A simple filing at the municipal court would have forced immediate action on their part to pay.
No business should require that an employee purchase equipment and supplies with their own resources. Petty cash and company credit cards are for use there. If an employee has to use his own resources to pay business expenses, he should be reimbursed by the company in a timely manner and if not, file a grievance with the court…not a union. On top of that, I would be looking for another job.
There is an old saying “if the boss does not see any problem, there is no problem. If you point out a problem, you become the problem.” Never forget that saying.
If the company is losing money from their mistreatment of employees they will either go out of business or will realize it and immediately correct it.
As far as the guy charging over $70K on his personal card and then losing his wife, house and everything else, I find that hard to believe.
In many instances, the International Globalist Conglomerates have betrayed the nation which gave them birth.
They deserve this kind of treatment where merited.
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to ta... err..... um...
{crickets}
...say, who won Dancing With The Stars between commercials for Viagra and Soma this week?
Lefties believe business is inherently “evil” ... thus their love of unions. It’s us [unions] versus them [business owners]. They have no qualms about stealing as it goes against business.
Go to the opening of a new Starbucks and you’ll horrified. Huge demonstrations against “corporate America”’. They hate Starbucks even though they have some of the best labor policies ... benefits for part time employees.
Look at how the Left tore up the guy who owns Whole Foods. He has terrific labor policies but Whole Foods got big ... corporate.
In fact I was just there this morning. They opened at 6AM today, Thanksgiving ... thereby torturing their poor employees for having to get to work early and on a holiday. :)
And at the time this happened we were all direct employees, permanent salaried employees no less. None of us were contractors.
“if the boss does not see any problem, there is no problem. If you point out a problem, you become the problem.”
LOL... True, but I favor the Peter Principle: "Everyone rises to their level of incompetence."
In 1999, the IT director in the States (same company that had the expenses debacle) decided to issue a diktat to all IT department heads worldwide, to go through every machine for Y2K compliance testing... using weekend work only, over four weekends. No subcontractors, said the memo.
My boss' face when he read the memo, was a picture. I think he started praying to Saint Jude. Based on the number of people on the payroll, and the distribution of the kit, this mission was only achievable in Europe if every IT staff member in Europe worked solidly from Friday 6PM to Monday 9AM, without sleep, for four weekends in a row.
I do wonder what would've happened if he'd had forty emails in his inbox the following Monday, CC'ing in every HR director in Europe and America, explaining the European Working Time Directive, and advising that if he still wanted to put that in an order, he might want to bear in mind such a blatant and material breach of employment regulations, Europe-wide, would result in the company being slapped with an unlimited fine if it ever went to court.
"No business should require that an employee purchase equipment and supplies with their own resources. Petty cash and company credit cards are for use there."
I frequently get called away to customer sites at short notice; I drive there, stay in a hotel if I have to, and claim it back when I get back to the office. This works best for me. If I'm going to be away for more than a few days, I get the office to fax through company authorization to the hotel and they pay the bill for me when I check out. I don't know why British companies don't tend to have company credit cards for the staff to the extent American companies do - but I have to do itemized expenses for cross-charging, so for me it wouldn't make any difference if I had a CCC or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
