Intelligent Design?

[Raithere]

The Federal Bankruptcy Court is going to let United Airlines terminate its employee pension plans. Employees are going to get their pensions from a federal agency, but some of them are going to get maybe half of what they were promised. Yet declaring personal bankruptcy has just been made more difficult.

First of all this is a court decision, if you disagree vote for different judges and demand the laws be changed.

Secondly, what is the alternative? That United goes completely under and employees will get even less return on their pensions because there will be no income at all. I agree it's not a very nice situation but it's not like United planned on running at a $23 billion dollar deficit.

Finally, part of the reason United is in trouble in the first place is because of the unions... it's a problem they helped create by constantly battling for larger salaries, larger benefits, etc. Or don't you recall all the strikes that happened and were threatened every time the airlines went to their employees and said, "Guys were going to have to cut benefits and jobs because we're loosing money fast"? Face it, they are at least partially responsible for screwing themselves.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I've been at the bottom of society regularly and have worked many times the bottom jobs. Things are much clearer there. A good job can cloud the truth a bit. The size of the corporation doesn't matter I think.

Sure does. Larger companies are under greater restriction and scrutiny at all levels of government than small ones. Large corporations must have policies instituted to guarantee certain rights and measures of equality. Large corporations can afford to offer more benefits due to various economies of scale.

So they kick you out on the street the next day when they do not need YOU anymore.

You might still need THEM. And none of this is your fault.

How skewed is that?

It's completely fair. It's called "at will employment". You have the right to quit at any time, no matter how badly it might screw the company. Equally, the company can fire you at any time no matter how bad it might screw you.

However, in the USA at least, there are many restrictions on how and why you can be fired and what kind of notice a company must give you. Heck, for a large layoff a company must give employees 60 days notice or 60 days pay. You owe the company no such return as you can just decide not to come in tomorrow for no reason at all.

The alternative is to get yourself a contract in which each party states its obligations to one another. Of course, that typically means you can't just cut bait and run the moment you get a better offer.

~Raithere

 

[spidergoat]

First of all this is a court decision, if you disagree vote for different judges and demand the laws be changed.

I will certainly try, but I think this was typical of republicans and their concern with corporate interests over the people. Right, the corporations are made of people, but no CEO is going broke over this. What is the connection between corporate interests and the religious right? Jesus wanted to help the poor.

Secondly, what is the alternative? That United goes completely under and employees will get even less return on their pensions because there will be no income at all. I agree it's not a very nice situation but it's not like United planned on running at a $23 billion dollar deficit.

So what? Let them go under, it's survival of the fittest, right? Let them sell all their assets to pay their debt to the workers first.

 

[wesmorris]

I've been at the bottom of society regularly and have worked many times the bottom jobs. Things are much clearer there. A good job can cloud the truth a bit. The size of the corporation doesn't matter I think.

They are paying you a decent salary, they give you a bonus, they pay for your health insurance. etc. etc.

So they kick you out on the street the next day when they do not need YOU anymore.

You might still need THEM. And none of this is your fault.

How skewed is that?

LOL. How is it skewed at all? What if you don't need them tomorrow? What if you're a shit employee? Neither party is necessarily responsible to continue the relationship, or do SHIT for the other party. If you work hard for them and they pay you well and end up not needing you, you'll get a great recommendation from them for another job somewhere else. You seem to expect some sort of gaurentee that business conditions won't change such that they can no longer afford you, or that they won't just get sick of your "you owe me" attitude (not that YOU are necessarily that way).

 

[wesmorris]

Right, the corporations are made of people, but no CEO is going broke over this. What is the connection between corporate interests and the religious right? Jesus wanted to help the poor.

It's ultimately in the best interest of a corporation for "the poor" to have money to spend on their products. Further, why would you think "the religious right" doesn't want to help the poor? The religious right as far as I can tell doesn't want to help the lazy freeloader perma-victim handout demander. I don't either. I want to teach him a skill so he can contribute to society. I want him to understand the system well enough to be able to make smart decisions regarding his future and taking care of his family. If he doesn't want to be bothered, all society "owes" him IMO, is the bare minimum essentials for sustenance. Nothing more. More is for those who bother.

So what? Let them go under, it's survival of the fittest, right? Let them sell all their assets to pay their debt to the workers first.

Agreed. It is WRONG IMO to let a company that has clearly shown it can't manage itself continue to destroy resources. Let the market sort it out. Bailing out airlines is IMO, basically indicative of pure corruption... but perhaps there are economic implications that I haven't thought of which render such decisions good judgement. It sure doesn't seem that way to me. The workers should come first, I agree wholly, but I'd have to see the full economic anlaysis of it to know if that's what's really most fair.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

We are talking about the general relationship between employer and employee. and we just have to browse history to see that in general the employee is on the short end of the stick.

That is what I mean by skewed relationship. The 'natural' state of the employer/employee relationship is a biased one. Biased towards the employer. That is why many people fought hard for rights we all now take for granted but are slowly being eroded away.

If you leave things unchecked life for most people will turn into a living hell. Just look at any 3rd world country.

Employers lock up their workers in the factory. Factory burns down. Employees burn down with the factory.

An excessive example? No, it happens. Maybe it will happen to you soon. You think it cannot happen?

If we think that there is a safe equilibrium then we should think about the long term picture. Sure you have your benefits. It is still going reasonably ok with the economy...

But what about in 10 years time. What about 50 years? Do you honestly think things will remain in an equilibrium if there is no counterforce to the demands of business? It took a hard and long battle to get any rights at all. And it is all going down the drain. How long can it last?

Or should I get some kind of retirement plan now? So I have some money when things go pear shaped later? So what about the next generation? have we become a society of selfish people suddenly? No ideals left but self wellbeing?

If that is the case then too I will say 'fuck you' (as a matter of speaking) and maybe you will burn with me in the same fucking factory in 20 or 30 years time. The kind of factory that thrives on old cheap labor. Making gameboys for rich chinese kids.

 

[mouse]

It's completely fair. It's called "at will employment". You have the right to quit at any time, no matter how badly it might screw the company. Equally, the company can fire you at any time no matter how bad it might screw you.

That would be fair, in an utopian scenario in which the availability of jobs is in tune with the availability of labour. If, however, you happen to live in a region with high unemployment, you are in a less preferable position than your employer. If you get fired, it's more difficult for you to get a new job, rather than for the company to hire somebody else.

 

[spidergoat]

The religious right as far as I can tell doesn't want to help the lazy freeloader perma-victim handout demander.

So then let's get our troops out of Iraq.

 

[dudhab]

If i was you i would be more worried about religous extremism in other parts of the globe, not mentioning any names or any particular religion.

 

[wesmorris]

That would be fair, in an utopian scenario in which the availability of jobs is in tune with the availability of labour. If, however, you happen to live in a region with high unemployment, you are in a less preferable position than your employer. If you get fired, it's more difficult for you to get a new job, rather than for the company to hire somebody else.

So you think it should be easy? Sure it's nice if it's easy, but it most likely wasn't easy for the guy who actually took the risk to start the business, who made it possible for the people to have the jobs in the first place. If you live in an area of high unemployment, shouldn't you then MOVE or start a business of your own? Perhaps find some way to provide a service that people need so maybe YOU can provide jobs for unemployed people? Yes? No? If no, why not?

 

[wesmorris]

We are talking about the general relationship between employer and employee. and we just have to browse history to see that in general the employee is on the short end of the stick.

How so? Could the employee not be the employer if he was willing to take the risk and apply himself as his employer has done?

That is what I mean by skewed relationship. The 'natural' state of the employer/employee relationship is a biased one.

Of course it is, but that doesn't really mean anything. If you don't like being an employee, be an employer, do your own thing, make your law suit or shut the hell up... right? Why not? Is it impossible? Sheez you might fail? Well the guy who started the company might have failed too eh? He might even still fail if he pays his employees more than he can afford to maintain profitability.

Biased towards the employer. That is why many people fought hard for rights we all now take for granted but are slowly being eroded away.

How are they being eroded please?

Here's the deal. You have something the employer wants, and he has something you want. He offers you as much money and security as it he think he can afford to do for what you offer him, which is satisfying some component of the business. If you think he offers you enough, you take it and work there. If not, you go find something else to do or whatever. Please explain how this is unfair.

If you leave things unchecked life for most people will turn into a living hell. Just look at any 3rd world country.

Sounds like a hasty generalization. Who exactly is leaving things unchecked besides the third world countries?

Employers lock up their workers in the factory. Factory burns down. Employees burn down with the factory.

Well, that's because there are no laws or enforcement thereof in those countries right? Try that in the US or I'd think any first world country and you'll see the lawsuits stack up a mile high.

An excessive example? No, it happens. Maybe it will happen to you soon. You think it cannot happen?

I don't think I'll be locked into a factory no. I work in one and even if it was locked it's really easy to unlock from the inside. Just turn the knob.

If we think that there is a safe equilibrium then we should think about the long term picture. Sure you have your benefits. It is still going reasonably ok with the economy...

I have no idea what you're talking about there.

But what about in 10 years time. What about 50 years? Do you honestly think things will remain in an equilibrium if there is no counterforce to the demands of business? It took a hard and long battle to get any rights at all. And it is all going down the drain. How long can it last?

Please explain how this counterforce is lacking. It's called the law. It differs from country to country.

Or should I get some kind of retirement plan now? So I have some money when things go pear shaped later? So what about the next generation? have we become a society of selfish people suddenly? No ideals left but self wellbeing?

So you expect some sort of gaurantee? Where does selfishness come into this? If for instance, my side business were to blow up into something more, I'd hire guys if I wanted. How is it selfish of me to give someone a wage they agree to work for? Why would they agree to work for less than they agree to?

If that is the case then too I will say 'fuck you' (as a matter of speaking) and maybe you will burn with me in the same fucking factory in 20 or 30 years time. The kind of factory that thrives on old cheap labor. Making gameboys for rich chinese kids.

Cheap labor is important. Why should someone be richly compensated for doing things I could train a monkey to do? If they have skills that are in demand, they have the leverage to command the compensation the market will bear. How is that unfair? How is it unfair to compensate someone with basically no skills for whatever they'll work for?

 

[Raithere]

I will certainly try, but I think this was typical of republicans and their concern with corporate interests over the people.

Okay, here's an essential issue you need to get right. Republicans do not favor corporations over people. They disagree with Democrats on what is the best way to help the most people. You may agree with one side or the other, or if you're really thinking you'll realize that neither side has the whole answer. But this is not simply a partisan issue.

I'd also like to clarify a point. A Union is not "the people". A Union is a labor organization that contracts with a company. It is, in essence, a company itself. With its own executive structure, its own operating costs, its own political and financial interests. Unions are not for the individual, if you think they are then just try getting a job at a union shop without joining the union and paying dues.

Right, the corporations are made of people, but no CEO is going broke over this.

Indeed, and the issue of executive responsibility does need to be looked into. But we're talking about the law now.

What is the connection between corporate interests and the religious right? Jesus wanted to help the poor.

There is none. This is politics. You can't simply glom all the issues together as if they represent a single ideology. You've fallen into partisanship which is exactly what the power mongers on both sides want. You're buying into the marketing. Stop being a sheep and look at the issues independently.

So what? Let them go under, it's survival of the fittest, right? Let them sell all their assets to pay their debt to the workers first.

And then the employees are out of a job and still probably won't get their full pension. I trust to the judge with many years of corporate bankruptcy experience to make a sound judgment in this matter unless and until someone proves him irresponsible.

Economies shift and there's nothing much you can do about it. Whenever it happens someone gets screwed. It's certainly no fun. I know, I work in the IT sector. Large corporate bureaucracies often have trouble reacting quickly enough to sudden changes and get hit, hard. That's the nature of a bureaucracy. It's not as if United's shareholders voted to bankrupt the company in order to dodge a pension plan.

The lesson to be learned here is "diversify". If the last 5 years haven't taught everyone that lesson then they have their heads stuck up their asses.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

That is what I mean by skewed relationship. The 'natural' state of the employer/employee relationship is a biased one. Biased towards the employer.

The employer is the one taking the risk. They are the one fronting the capital to even make the attempt to earn a profit. Should they then be at the mercy of their employees?

Once again, the word company or corporation comes up and everyone starts thinking of the huge mega-corporations. Here are some facts:

Small businesses (<500 employees):
Represent more than 99% of all employers.
Employ 52% of private-sector workers, 51% of workers on public assistance, and 38% of workers in high-tech occupations.
Represent nearly all of the self-employed, which are 7.2% of the civilian work force.
Provide about 75% of the net new jobs.
Provide 51% of the private sector output.
Represent 96% of all exporters of goods.

That is why many people fought hard for rights we all now take for granted but are slowly being eroded away.

Federal laws are constantly being passed to give more protections to employees and I've yet to see any repealed. So specifically what "erosion" are you referring to because I do believe you're talking out of your ass.

If you leave things unchecked life for most people will turn into a living hell. Just look at any 3rd world country.

The state of "3rd" world nations is most certainly not due to corporate influence.

Employers lock up their workers in the factory. Factory burns down. Employees burn down with the factory.

An excessive example? No, it happens. Maybe it will happen to you soon. You think it cannot happen?

Yes, I know it cannot happen. Not here, because we have laws to prevent such things. When they repeal OSHA then I'll start to worry. As of now OSHA makes sure I have safety goggles because laptops use batteries.

If we think that there is a safe equilibrium then we should think about the long term picture.

There is no safe equilibrium anywhere, what fantasy are you living in?

But what about in 10 years time. What about 50 years? Do you honestly think things will remain in an equilibrium if there is no counterforce to the demands of business? It took a hard and long battle to get any rights at all. And it is all going down the drain. How long can it last?

Again, where are things "going down the drain"? where is this assault on our hard-won rights as employees coming from? How are the corporations unbalancing this illusory equilibrium you're talking about?

~Raithere

P.S. Political economics in the Religion forum... gotta love it.

 

[Raithere]

That would be fair, in an utopian scenario in which the availability of jobs is in tune with the availability of labour. If, however, you happen to live in a region with high unemployment, you are in a less preferable position than your employer. If you get fired, it's more difficult for you to get a new job, rather than for the company to hire somebody else.

I sympathize, I've been there myself. Move.

I don't know what else to say. Somewhere people developed the retarded notions that life is supposed to be fair, that they are entitled to what they want, and that every imbalance in life demands redress from those with the advantage.

They're wrong. Life is not fair, you have to earn what you want, and those with the advantage will do what they can to maintain their advantage, you'd do the same and you're a liar if you say otherwise.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Wes: I just realized I was mostly echoing what you already said. Oh well. Guess we're pretty much on the same page.

~Raithere

 

[James R]

Raithere:

I think you're living in a fantasy world.

Big business is not always good to employees. And the market economy is not always the best way to give people a fair go.

The United States has, in general, a terrible social welfare system, compared to most first-world countries. The people at the bottom end, working for the big corporations, are not joyously happy because market forces are looking after them. Rather the opposite, in fact. These people often are forced to work two or more jobs, with long hours, just to get by. The state doesn't help them to any significant extent, and the companies pay them the lowest possible wages. These people do not have the bargaining power to talk up their wages when they deal with General Motors or McDonalds or whatever. They are easily interchangeable as far as the corporations are concerned. If one person leaves because of poor conditions, well, there are plenty more people scraping buy who desperately need a job.

Meanwhile, the executives at the tops of these corporations are being paid obscene sums of money, in the tens of millions of dollars per year. Somebody (perhaps you) said above that this works out to $12 an hour, once you take in all the long hours the poor overworked executives put in. You do the math, with a salary of $10 million, say.

Now, it is possible that Americans will complain about conditions to the government, and sometimes the government might listen to them, if it means votes. So, the big corporations use offshore labour instead, and pay those people even less than their American employees.

The assumption by many in this thread that rampant capitalism is necessarily good in and of itself amazes me. I suppose it's strongest in those who remember the cold war, when any hint of communism was considered a danger to the American way of life. There seems to be a great faith that if you let the Market or the Economy rule, everybody will be happy. Forget social welfare. Forget giving people a hand up. Forget free education. If people born into poor circumstances can't drag themselves up out of poverty, they have no right to live in America - or at least no right to be heard.

What's happening to compassion in modern America? Is the dollar the be-all and end-all?

 

[jayleew]

I've been at the bottom of society regularly and have worked many times the bottom jobs. Things are much clearer there. A good job can cloud the truth a bit. The size of the corporation doesn't matter I think.

They are paying you a decent salary, they give you a bonus, they pay for your health insurance. etc. etc.

So they kick you out on the street the next day when they do not need YOU anymore.

You might still need THEM. And none of this is your fault.

How skewed is that?

There are steps that you can take, depending on the situation. There is always unemployment. If you got fired for nothing you did, I would speak with a lawyer because the corporation must have a legitimate complaint against you to terminate your employment. Most lawyers will speak with you and tell you what your options are.

If they are downsizing, that is life. Put yourself in the CEO or business owner's shoes. You own a company and you see the only way to be around next year (because the economy is depressing), is to downsize, that is a hard fact of life. Sure that puts a damper on your life, but get back up on the horse. Collect unemployment, and find another job...if they didn't see your value, that is their loss, you didn't need to work for a company that doesn't see your value. Employee-employer relations is a partnership, when the other party does not contribute to the partnership, the other needs to seperate himself from the partnership and seek greener pastures. The idea that the corporation must be forced to continue an unlucrative partnership will drive a business into the ground.

 

[jayleew]

Or should I get some kind of retirement plan now? So I have some money when things go pear shaped later? So what about the next generation? have we become a society of selfish people suddenly? No ideals left but self wellbeing?

Yes. Start a plan now. The earlier the better, and the easier on the pocketbook. When have we not been a selfish people? Is that okay? I'm not talking about being a prick about about it, but when have we ever been motivated by anything, besides self preservation, whether it be for the country or for our family?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Just look around you. Not all societies are selfish to the core. They made you selfish. Now you think it is normal. It is not.

 

[jayleew]

The employer is the one taking the risk. They are the one fronting the capital to even make the attempt to earn a profit. Should they then be at the mercy of their employees?

Once again, the word company or corporation comes up and everyone starts thinking of the huge mega-corporations. Here are some facts:

Small businesses (<500 employees):
Represent more than 99% of all employers.
Employ 52% of private-sector workers, 51% of workers on public assistance, and 38% of workers in high-tech occupations.
Represent nearly all of the self-employed, which are 7.2% of the civilian work force.
Provide about 75% of the net new jobs.
Provide 51% of the private sector output.
Represent 96% of all exporters of goods.

I can attest to that, the corporation I work for has only 60 employees, but we pull three to four million dollars a year. Unfortunately, we are struggling to survive. I don't know if this company will make it.

How did we get to politics?

It is a break from the old grindstone, Raithere. It will be some time before we might come to an agreement on religion.