Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Always Low Tactics. Always
Tech Central Station ^ | 8.18.2005 | Ryan Sager

Posted on 08/18/2005 5:23:29 AM PDT by JohnnyLawrence4U

The War on Wal-Mart continues apace this week in New York City. There, the cost of living is high -- as is the demand for Wal-Mart's services. But the labor movement's tactics, as always, are lower than low.

Their latest tactic: a bill that will require grocery stores in the five boroughs with 35 or more employees to provide their workers with "prevailing" health-care benefits.

(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: labor; walmart

1 posted on 08/18/2005 5:23:29 AM PDT by JohnnyLawrence4U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnnyLawrence4U

What's wrong with workers having "prevailing" health-care benefits? Have you got something against workers?


2 posted on 08/18/2005 5:25:32 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyLawrence4U

And who is to determine what is "prevailing"? Will they have to match the benefit levels city workers, or of union leadership thugs?

All that will do is unemploy more marginal workers, while the better workers get overtime.


3 posted on 08/18/2005 5:34:23 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Who defniens what "prevailing" is?

Is it a hard number?

Is it a range?

Why can't a company decide what pay and benefits are appropriate for its workforce.

If the P&B is not appropriate then they will loss employees as well as business and ultimately fail.

Why not force all companies to provide "prevailing" wages and health care?

Why not force them to do so for part-timers?

When does government intrusion stop?
4 posted on 08/18/2005 5:35:11 AM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
"What's wrong with workers having "prevailing" health-care benefits? Have you got something against workers?"

No, he's probably got something against still more SOCIALISM, which is what government-mandated health-care benefits will be.

5 posted on 08/18/2005 5:36:01 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
What's wrong with workers having "prevailing" health-care benefits?

Absolutely not one thing.

What's wrong with letting Wal-Mart and the workers decide that, instead of the damn government?

6 posted on 08/18/2005 5:36:03 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyLawrence4U

The guy who has 34 employees is going to think REAL hard about hiring that next one.


7 posted on 08/18/2005 5:37:42 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

If workers are "given" prevailing health care benefits by law, then the rest of their conciliary will go down or be frozen. The money has to come from somewhere.

I would rather be paid a better wage, and work for a company with a buoyant pay structure than for a company where a large part of my pay comes in benefits that I do not want, or can find elsewhere at a rate/coverage that suits me. That is my choice - but unionised companies can't deal with that, seemingly. They made bad economic decisions in the past and now want to drag everyone else down to their level.


8 posted on 08/18/2005 5:42:12 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Because Unions have destroyed many industries with their "prevailing" benefits.

Workers have the choice to unionize. They've chosen not to do so. Instead of taking no for an answer, the Unions turn to lawmakers and get them to legislate protections for unions that the people don't support.

Unions squeeze every possible cent out of employers by artificially limiting the labor market. They cause inflation that hurts everyone. They give big benefits to workers in good economic times, but when the bad economic times, the Unions and their workers aren't willing to take a cut.

When the costs of those high priced health benefits soar, they arn't willing to have their workers pay for part of the costs. The results is more inflation, and less competitiveness. More jobs are cheaper to send overseas than to do domestically. Obscenely expensive automation becomes cost effective and people lose jobs.

One of the worst things about unions is they treat all workers the same regardless of their performance. Pay is based on job clasification and seniority. Hard work is not encouraged. Productivity is not encouraged.

Unions are dictate socialist practices which have been economic failures everywhere they have been tried.


9 posted on 08/18/2005 6:38:46 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

It's not unionized companies that can't deal with that, it's the unions themselves.

The problem is that workers don't need a union to survive, but unions do need workers to survive.

A union is a business. They sell their services to workers. Unions are big businesses that exploit workers. They only look after workers in so far as it benefits the union.


10 posted on 08/18/2005 6:41:57 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2

Exactly, if workers are willing to sign up for a job...why should the government mandate what a company pays?????


11 posted on 08/18/2005 6:50:49 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Their latest tactic: a bill that will require grocery stores in the five boroughs with 35 or more employees to provide their workers with "prevailing" health-care benefits.

These people are full of sh!t. Why only grocery stores?

12 posted on 08/18/2005 6:56:33 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyLawrence4U

Another thing that has always bothered me is this 40 hour week nonsense. Why should the government dictate to me that I have to pay overtime wages for hours beyond this limit? When my father owned the company everyone worked 48 hours. In my grandfather's time, I think that they worked 54 hours as a rule. I would rather hire employees that want to work, not a bunch of slackers that want to get by on 40 hours.


13 posted on 08/18/2005 7:02:27 AM PDT by HuronMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
The guy who has 34 employees is going to think REAL hard about hiring that next one.

Never hire the next one. Start a temp agency and use temps.

14 posted on 08/18/2005 7:07:22 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson