Books, Recipes, Gardening AND

“Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Australia

#18608 Sep 20, 2013
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>You ain't just whistling Dixie there, Sir. While this country hasn't seen major strikes since <many years ago>, the late August, 1963 March on Washington for JOBS and FREEDOM was a comprehensive unified statement of purpose and in a sense, a strike. It got JFKs attention to move on legislation proposal.

Conversely, short-sightedness or lack of unified purpose was demonstrated in the recent strikes of Walmart workers in some cities. Wow, look at how many more 'big-box' stores (and other Walmarts) could have participated. And other categories perhaps.

Plus, the Occupy <wherever> mass happenings awhile back.

There is potential, if it's only perceived.
Yes, it's amazing what can be accomplished when everyone sticks together for a just outcome. Last year I was proud to be one of 650 workers on our site who managed to stay out for 9 weeks over a pay dispute. We had great community support and also from workers on other sites and other unions who helped us financially and kept our morale high.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/char...

We had a second win last month when one of our best supporters won his legal battle for his role in our dispute.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/char...

“Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Australia

#18609 Sep 20, 2013
Sorry ... This should be the first link.

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php...

“Resist Persist Enlist Exist”

Level 6

Since: Sep 12

Placentia, CA

#18610 Sep 21, 2013
1IrishRebel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's amazing what can be accomplished when everyone sticks together for a just outcome. Last year I was proud to be one of 650 workers on our site who managed to stay out for 9 weeks over a pay dispute. We had great community support and also from workers on other sites and other unions who helped us financially and kept our morale high.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/char...
We had a second win last month when one of our best supporters won his legal battle for his role in our dispute.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/char...
congratulations on getting the better of 'the man'(read it all plus the video)
Ted Cruz

Rolling Meadows, IL

#18611 Sep 21, 2013
1IrishRebel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's amazing what can be accomplished when everyone sticks together for a just outcome. Last year I was proud to be one of 650 workers on our site who managed to stay out for 9 weeks over a pay dispute. We had great community support and also from workers on other sites and other unions who helped us financially and kept our morale high.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/char...
We had a second win last month when one of our best supporters won his legal battle for his role in our dispute.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-16/char...
You guys have Unions? How archaic! We used to have them but, Unions got "too big for their britches". That's a technical term for "labor steals profits".

Oh, sure, things like the 40 hour work week, over-time and benefits seemed to be the thing to do at the time but, do we need a BIG GOVERNMENT telling us we can have these things when we can get these things on our own? No. I guess... All you have to do is ask! If your boss doesn't want to pay you $20 an hour to build a house because he's being "generous" at $2, you are free to move on down the road until you get that $20. Be sure and wear a hat though because when it floats, you've too far.

Honestly, ask any teapublican about Unions. They are gifted Americans who know things us ordinary Americans could NEVER know! I mean- do you need a government DICTATING whether your child can work in a coal mine or not? They'll tell you "no". In MY AMERICA, Americans are free to pay people as they see fit! G'day to you, mate!

“Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Australia

#18617 Sep 21, 2013
Rose of Tralee wrote:
<quoted text>congratulations on getting the better of 'the man'(read it all plus the video)
Hi Rose. Thank you.

“Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Australia

#18618 Sep 21, 2013
Ted Cruz wrote:
<quoted text>You guys have Unions? How archaic! We used to have them but, Unions got "too big for their britches". That's a technical term for "labor steals profits".

Oh, sure, things like the 40 hour work week, over-time and benefits seemed to be the thing to do at the time but, do we need a BIG GOVERNMENT telling us we can have these things when we can get these things on our own? No. I guess... All you have to do is ask! If your boss doesn't want to pay you $20 an hour to build a house because he's being "generous" at $2, you are free to move on down the road until you get that $20. Be sure and wear a hat though because when it floats, you've too far.

Honestly, ask any teapublican about Unions. They are gifted Americans who know things us ordinary Americans could NEVER know! I mean- do you need a government DICTATING whether your child can work in a coal mine or not? They'll tell you "no". In MY AMERICA, Americans are free to pay people as they see fit! G'day to you, mate!
Hi Ted. Yes we still have a few good unions but "the man" (thanks Rose) is making it harder and harder for them to represent us properly. In our case we had to make a stand as a rank and file and community protest, to circumvent all the injunctions and court orders they were throwing at our unions. We also have a lot of people who feel that unions have outgrown their usefulness and all the conditions we enjoy would have been given to us freely by our benevolent employers because they are so much more caring now than they used to be in the olden days.
We have some major battles coming up now that a new conservative government has just been elected with, what they feel, is a mandate to crush the unions.
G'day to you too, mate!:-)

“Got'em figured out?”

Since: Nov 09

Think again

#18619 Sep 21, 2013
1IrishRebel wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Ted. Yes we still have a few good unions but "the man" (thanks Rose) is making it harder and harder for them to represent us properly. In our case we had to make a stand as a rank and file and community protest, to circumvent all the injunctions and court orders they were throwing at our unions. We also have a lot of people who feel that unions have outgrown their usefulness and all the conditions we enjoy would have been given to us freely by our benevolent employers because they are so much more caring now than they used to be in the olden days.
We have some major battles coming up now that a new conservative government has just been elected with, what they feel, is a mandate to crush the unions.
G'day to you too, mate!:-)
Yeah, too bad your country's government decided that your hottie Prime Minister was out of favor.
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

#18620 Sep 21, 2013
1IrishRebel wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Ted. Yes we still have a few good unions but "the man" (thanks Rose) is making it harder and harder for them to represent us properly. In our case we had to make a stand as a rank and file and community protest, to circumvent all the injunctions and court orders they were throwing at our unions. We also have a lot of people who feel that unions have outgrown their usefulness and all the conditions we enjoy would have been given to us freely by our benevolent employers because they are so much more caring now than they used to be in the olden days.
We have some major battles coming up now that a new conservative government has just been elected with, what they feel, is a mandate to crush the unions.
G'day to you too, mate!:-)
The logic of Unions "out growing their usefulness" befuddles me. But, our Supreme Court believes we now exist in a post-racial society so certain (former slave) states don't have to alert the Federal government when they want to eff with some peoples voting rights. They can now just do it. Texas waited three hours, I think.

People bled and died for Unions and voting rights. There is no burden of these laws being on the books. They are not heavy. They must be weighing heavily on someone though because they are going to great lengths to lighten the law books.

Imagine spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get rid of something they say is no longer useful? It seems smart money would just let it fade away....

“Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Australia

#18621 Sep 21, 2013
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, too bad your country's government decided that your hottie Prime Minister was out of favor.
Hi DW! Yes, the Labor party had too much infighting and were forever usurping each other. They were only slightly better for workers than this lot but what can you do? One of the contenders for leadership of the Labor party now, who is an ex union official, was no friend to us during our dispute, declaring that our protest was illegal.
I read somewhere once that we all vote for which party we think should enforce the laws laid down by the 1%.

“Got'em figured out?”

Since: Nov 09

Think again

#18622 Sep 21, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>The logic of Unions "out growing their usefulness" befuddles me. But, our Supreme Court believes we now exist in a post-racial society so certain (former slave) states don't have to alert the Federal government when they want to eff with some peoples voting rights. They can now just do it. Texas waited three hours, I think.
People bled and died for Unions and voting rights. There is no burden of these laws being on the books. They are not heavy. They must be weighing heavily on someone though because they are going to great lengths to lighten the law books.
Imagine spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get rid of something they say is no longer useful? It seems smart money would just let it fade away....
Refresh my memory please! I think the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a corporation entity was a person. Correct?

I don't seem to recall any similar decision about a union.

And for the BRG&'ers .... shalom!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18623 Sep 21, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
.47 driver pay
.66 fuel @$4/gal and 6 mpg
.10 maintenance
.12 insurance (double of mine so guessing)
.20 admin
$1.55/mile cost (aprox)
Regular freight is averaging $2/mile and 10,000 per month per truck is a low estimate
$4,500/ month per truck =$90,000/ month profit for $1,080,000 profit for 20 trucks.
Take away, oh,$200,000 for misc junk that happens and you sir, make a lot of money.
Now this is all rough estimates with tons of room for errors each way but at these numbers, some would say you're greedy and should give most of that profit to your drivers.
Of course, I say YOU took the risk, YOU built the company, YOU decide how much profit belongs to you.
I've been pondering over your question a bit and am not sure I'll be able to satisfactorily answer it.

"When do you pay them more than they agreed to?"

In my case, as soon as needs dictate. Cost of living is the number 1 reason for me. The fact that they hump their butts year after year for little to no thanks from anybody for doing what they do, is more motivation to pay them what I can.

You're correct. I did put out the initial capital. But as for building the company on my own, FAT CHANCE!! You mentioned that I could have gotten "good" drivers for much cheaper. You're correct there also. But I didn't want "good" drivers. I wanted "professional truckers". Those men are just as much responsible for the company's success than I. Without them, there is no company. And yes, I could pay them more than .47. But then, they slip into the next tax bracket and actually end up taking home less. Thus the profit sharing account. Once a year, we have a meeting. They, and I'll repeat that, "they" decide on how it's spent. Next year, 4 of the new trucks will get 130" ICTs on 310" wheel bases. What's left will be split equally among the 16 that will stay with the Studios. One year, it was used for when they took vacations. Other years, its just split between them.

I don't think I'm getting to the answer you're looking for and I don't know if I can. It's more of a decision, as a business owner, that you have to make for yourself individually. I wish I could be of more help.

“Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Australia

#18624 Sep 21, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>The logic of Unions "out growing their usefulness" befuddles me. But, our Supreme Court believes we now exist in a post-racial society so certain (former slave) states don't have to alert the Federal government when they want to eff with some peoples voting rights. They can now just do it. Texas waited three hours, I think.

People bled and died for Unions and voting rights. There is no burden of these laws being on the books. They are not heavy. They must be weighing heavily on someone though because they are going to great lengths to lighten the law books.

Imagine spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get rid of something they say is no longer useful? It seems smart money would just let it fade away....
Yes, they don't seem to think that other organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce or employer groups such as the Master Builders assn. have outlived their usefulness.
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

#18625 Sep 21, 2013
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
Refresh my memory please! I think the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a corporation entity was a person. Correct?
I don't seem to recall any similar decision about a union.
And for the BRG&'ers .... shalom!
Nope. I guess Unions are not human. It seems a bit one-sided on their part as far as rights go.
Natasfonos

United States

#18626 Sep 21, 2013
Richard Barlow wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been pondering over your question a bit and am not sure I'll be able to satisfactorily answer it.
"When do you pay them more than they agreed to?"
In my case, as soon as needs dictate. Cost of living is the number 1 reason for me. The fact that they hump their butts year after year for little to no thanks from anybody for doing what they do, is more motivation to pay them what I can.
You're correct. I did put out the initial capital. But as for building the company on my own, FAT CHANCE!! You mentioned that I could have gotten "good" drivers for much cheaper. You're correct there also. But I didn't want "good" drivers. I wanted "professional truckers". Those men are just as much responsible for the company's success than I. Without them, there is no company. And yes, I could pay them more than .47. But then, they slip into the next tax bracket and actually end up taking home less. Thus the profit sharing account. Once a year, we have a meeting. They, and I'll repeat that, "they" decide on how it's spent. Next year, 4 of the new trucks will get 130" ICTs on 310" wheel bases. What's left will be split equally among the 16 that will stay with the Studios. One year, it was used for when they took vacations. Other years, its just split between them.
I don't think I'm getting to the answer you're looking for and I don't know if I can. It's more of a decision, as a business owner, that you have to make for yourself individually. I wish I could be of more help.
If you don't mind me asking, what do you haul with a 130" ICT and 310" wheelbase?

I have a 110" ICT and pull blanket wrap.
Natasfonos

Denver, CO

#18627 Sep 22, 2013
Richard Barlow wrote:
<quoted text>I've been pondering over your question a bit and am not sure I'll be able to satisfactorily answer it.

"When do you pay them more than they agreed to?"

In my case, as soon as needs dictate. Cost of living is the number 1 reason for me. The fact that they hump their butts year after year for little to no thanks from anybody for doing what they do, is more motivation to pay them what I can.

You're correct. I did put out the initial capital. But as for building the company on my own, FAT CHANCE!! You mentioned that I could have gotten "good" drivers for much cheaper. You're correct there also. But I didn't want "good" drivers. I wanted "professional truckers". Those men are just as much responsible for the company's success than I. Without them, there is no company. And yes, I could pay them more than .47. But then, they slip into the next tax bracket and actually end up taking home less. Thus the profit sharing account. Once a year, we have a meeting. They, and I'll repeat that, "they" decide on how it's spent. Next year, 4 of the new trucks will get 130" ICTs on 310" wheel bases. What's left will be split equally among the 16 that will stay with the Studios. One year, it was used for when they took vacations. Other years, its just split between them.

I don't think I'm getting to the answer you're looking for and I don't know if I can. It's more of a decision, as a business owner, that you have to make for yourself individually. I wish I could be of more help.
My point is pretty simple.

At no point do you owe your employees a penny more than they have agreed to work for. At any time you choose to give them more, that is your decision and should be based upon YOUR business choices, not the government or some crybaby occupy movement.

Personally, I think you're the kind of trucking company owner that I'd enjoy working for. The man I'm leased to now is the first truly honest company owner that I've met in my 14 years of doing this.
famous poster

Palatine, IL

#18628 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is pretty simple.
At no point do you owe your employees a penny more than they have agreed to work for. At any time you choose to give them more, that is your decision and should be based upon YOUR business choices, not the government or some crybaby occupy movement.
Personally, I think you're the kind of trucking company owner that I'd enjoy working for. The man I'm leased to now is the first truly honest company owner that I've met in my 14 years of doing this.
OK. There was a misunderstanding. My post was NOT about bonuses. The government does NOT force businesses to pay bonuses. You misunderstood. But, no, at no point do you "owe" your employees a bonus. Now, a living wage- that's different.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18629 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't mind me asking, what do you haul with a 130" ICT and 310" wheelbase?
I have a 110" ICT and pull blanket wrap.
I don't mind at all. Those four pull explosives, electronics and medical mostly. The trls are 48' dual compartment/dual zone Danes on a 10' 6" spread. Weight isn't a problem so the trucks can be heavier. And the length is legal for Cali.
Natasfonos

Denver, CO

#18630 Sep 22, 2013
famous poster wrote:
<quoted text>OK. There was a misunderstanding. My post was NOT about bonuses. The government does NOT force businesses to pay bonuses. You misunderstood. But, no, at no point do you "owe" your employees a bonus. Now, a living wage- that's different.
No, I owe my employees whatever they agree to work for. If the business I operate does not support a living wage, then my employee may have to augment his income by working a second job or getting some trade that pays better.
Living wage is way too open ended.

You're entitled to live to the level that you're willing to work for. Work at a McJob, you earn a McLifestyle.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18631 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is pretty simple.
At no point do you owe your employees a penny more than they have agreed to work for. At any time you choose to give them more, that is your decision and should be based upon YOUR business choices, not the government or some crybaby occupy movement.
Personally, I think you're the kind of trucking company owner that I'd enjoy working for. The man I'm leased to now is the first truly honest company owner that I've met in my 14 years of doing this.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
We broker our own loads 90% of the time. There are a few contract accounts, and some customers, even though there is no contract, seem to think there is. We do our best to accommodate them as best we can. The drivers pick and choose the loads for the most part, but can opt to find their own if they would like to get somewhere other than where a known load is headed. The requirement for that being, the load they find must pay as much or more than the other load. Many times, when they call our dispatch girl with a load, she is able to get a little more than what the board advertised. So in a way, they get to set their own income. But when it comes to getting them home, all the rules go out the window. No matter what the load pays, they get home. There's no compromising there.
It's a business practice that's worked for many a year now. I don't see any reason to change it now or in the foreseeable future. No need to try and fix what's not broken.
famous poster

Palatine, IL

#18632 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I owe my employees whatever they agree to work for. If the business I operate does not support a living wage, then my employee may have to augment his income by working a second job or getting some trade that pays better.
Living wage is way too open ended.
You're entitled to live to the level that you're willing to work for. Work at a McJob, you earn a McLifestyle.
Here's the thing: If you make your living in this country, you do it by our rules.

If you are using our roads, for example, you pay for that privilege with taxes and agree to play by society's rules. It's pretty McSimple.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Topix Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
frAUDS 2 hr GHIJKLM2zyx 429
Welcome To The Topix Internet Top Mod 21 (Feb '12) 3 hr User Gamer 6,253
Skype mic bj by a chick 5 hr Ramsforever 25
A-Z of "ANY WORD" that comes to mind! (Sep '12) 5 hr User Gamer 1,091
Snapchat Exchange 6 hr Ellie 5
Word association game (Sep '12) 10 hr - Sookie - 2,657
Something to Say 11 hr North Mountain 7
More from around the web