The Glade 4.0

All quit and take their experience and training with them.

If the person that started the company and owns it asks for something and the Union says no, what recourse does the owner have?

How is everyone quitting at the same time substantially different from everyone striking? I'm pretty sure that in any situation where it's illegal for a union to say, "If you don't give us X, Y, and Z, we all go on strike" it's also illegal for them to say, "If you don't give us X, Y, and Z we all quit."

As far as the union, if they can't strike, well the owner can just ignore them. What are they going to do? Unless of course the union is demanding something which the owner is contractually obligated to provide, which requires the owner to have signed a contract with the union giving them that privilege at some point in the past, so it's still on the owner.

Is the owner allowed by the NRLB to fire strikers and negotiate employment with other people if his current workers decide they don't like the terms of their employment?

Workers can quit whenever they want. If they can't, then they arent employees, they are slaves.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Xeq:

Are you trolling this topic? Honest question.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No it isn't. You're just making up legal positions that have no basis in reality.



Again, public sector unions that can't strike are neither powerless nor reliant on corruption to have influence (not to say that none of them ae corrupt). You're just claiming this based on your intuition which is not reflected in reality.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're telling me union members can't be fired? Now, I realize most unions have contracts with their employer that govern the hiring and firing process, which might bar the employer from simply replacing the whole workforce in the event of a strike. But this is something else that the employer had to agree to at some point. It's still on him. In the absence of such a contract, he can simply replace everyone if they decide to strike.

Have you read about the rubber rooms in NY? Teachers who cant be fired getting full pay for doing essentially nothing. It's been that way for years and before that, there was no such thing as an incompetent teacher. The latest "fix" is to make up some meaningless clerical work for them to do instead of simply doing nothing at all.

This isnt a handfull of teachers for a few months doing this. It's hundreds, in NY alone, for years.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I don't dispute that, but is this because of a law or because of a contract with their union?

As a side note, who would want that job????

People who don't want to put in any effort to get paid. Or people who couldn't do anything better for the amount of money they make. I couldn't do it, but as evidenced by many cities, such as NYC, enough people are quite comfortable with it.

They're making 80k plus a year. One woman they interviewed made over 100k. Plus lifetime medical for the whole family.

To do nothing. Read a book, surf the web etc. I could live with boring.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Damn! I wouldn't mind having that job!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

I guess that answers my question.

F that, though. Just wasting away accomplishing nothing....

How would you feel in your 60s come retirement? Having done nothing with your entire life?

Not everyone feels their job/career defines their life or their accomplishments. For a lot of people, a job is just a means of getting paid, while satisfaction and fulfillment are derived primarily from things like family, friends, hobbies, education, religion, etc.

It's 36% of the time you are awake. More if you have to commute. It cannot be discounted.

I know what you mean, it would be depressing. It's still absurd though, not to mention wasteful.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

That's me. My job is just a method of getting paid so I can do the stuff I actually care about when I'm not working. I think this is true for the majority. A career doesn't define you, it's not who you are, it's just something you do.



Assuming I sleep 8 hours a day, it's 32% for me. But then I spend as much as possible of that 32% thinking about other stuff.

If I could find a way to get paid without ever going to work (such as, if I won the lottery. Unlikely, yes -- moreso because I don't play the lottery), i'd never work again.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Also, keep in mind, these are the shitty/involved in borderline unprovable scandals teachers that would have been fired under another system. I doubt that they were really going to be able to look back at their life with a sense of accomplishment anyways, unless they're excellent at deluding themselves.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Then you need a new job/career.

If I can find a career surfing the net for fun, playing games, or sitting on a beach in the tropics drinking margaritas, I'll let you know. The purpose of my life is to enjoy it. I don't need anything else.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Exactly. So why waste 32% of it on things you don't like? I'm sure you can find more that interests you than what you list.

It's hard to get other people to pay me to do the things I like doing, because nothing I like doing would have any value to them. Based on other people I know, this is fairly typical of the average...

Anyway, your question was something like 'Who would like to get paid to do nothing?' I think most people would, if they could. If I could live off of investments, for example, i certainly wouldn't bother getting a job.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yeah, I'm completely with Talya on this. The few things I like enough to enjoy doing them for 1/3 of my waking life are not generally profit-generating activities, and hence not things anyone is going to pay me to do. If I could "retire" from income-generating work now and live off investments, I'd be more than happy to do so. Alternatively, getting paid to sit in a rubber room all day would be fine too, as long as I was free to spend that time reading, surfing, writing, gaming, etc., and the person paying me was happy to do so, not begrudgingly forced into it.

Accomplishing things is just a modern cultural fad. People who think they need to accomplish something are brainwashed. Do you think hunter-gatherers accomplished anything throughout their lives?