posted on June 18, 2002 02:26:39 PM new
Linda, how you look to other people is your problem and I couldn't care less, nor will I make the mistake of being polite to you again.
posted on June 18, 2002 08:52:43 PM new
Are you out of your friggen mind Linda ?
management and Unions getting along better ?
How about more like gutless Union bought off leadership.
In case it has not entered your little world workers are cared for less than anytime since the end of world war two,
TRASHING PENSIONS AND reduction of MEDICAL AND HEALTH benefits layoff and reduced benefits is what most workers are getting.
fAR lEFT ? yEAH RIGHT DIG OUT THE COMMIE MONSTER, BS BS BS There never would have been any reds if not for the inhuman greed of the capitalist elite.
Hard work and dedication ? you have got to be kidding,
they murdered the first Union organizers with the blessing of this government the fact is is that the only time the rich opened their pockets to share was when they found themselves up against the wall between the fascist and the marxists and had to have the working people fight their battles one more time.
other wise we would all be living in tenements and company houseing.
posted on June 18, 2002 10:36:14 PM new
auroranorth -
Are you out of your friggen mind Linda ? I don't think so....but wouldn't I be the last to know if I were?
As a newlywed I worked for a large aero-space company [as did my mother and my step father and most of my parents friends] and was in a union while I worked to put my husband through college. We had wonderful working conditions, pay and benefits.
After our children were grown and I returned to the work force, I again worked for a company where I was in a union. Again...great working conditions, above average pay and super benefits.
My husband was in middle management and the company he worked for paid the union workers well and management was very open to acting to change any grievances the workers had. But there weren't many as most workers appreciate the working conditions and benefits the company provided their workers. They had the best working conditions, above average pay and a super benefits that were above what most other companies offered their employess.
Our youngest son is a heavy equipment operator, and a union member. He too makes an excellent salary, has wonderful benefits and whenever there is any safely concerns on the job, the management takes care of it quickly.
Everyone of our friends and associates that my husband and I have ever known over the 35 years have never stated that they weren't well paid, didn't have excellent benefits packages, etc.... Lots of satisfied corporate employed workers.
So...that's part of "my own little world". I do see things from a different life experience.
posted on June 19, 2002 02:39:15 AM new".but wouldn't I be the last to know if I were?"
Yep. You are the embodiment of the old maxim that 'you can not convince a stupid person of it'.
On your little treatise you neglected to say that were it not for the unions, all of the happy benefits would not have been provided. At some point the benevolent capitalist corporation was forced to provide well for it's employees or not remain in business.
posted on June 19, 2002 07:22:54 AM newUnions were formed because of the hard work and dedication of people like Mary Jones. Good came from that. What part of that didn't you get?
Rail against capitalism because of the way working conditions were 80-90 years ago, if you choose. I prefer to see the positive changes that have been made, not stay focused on what was wrong long before you and I were born.
posted on June 19, 2002 01:41:19 PM new
+ changes?
I hardly call the biggest problem for working nurses in the Northeast a positive change. Hospitals are understaffing, and solving the problem through mandating, which requires the nurse on to stay if there is no replacement. So the hospitals can understaff, and paying overtime actually works out cheaper than hiring more full time staff. So the nurse has been on 12 hours, and has to stay 18 hours. So there is no way for that nurse to get child care, or pick up his/her child from day care. A nurse that has been working for more than 8 hours is more likely to make med errors. It's bad for staff, bad for the patients, but good for the bottom line. Unions are addressing this issue. Hospitals that aren't unionized just say if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Mandating is mandatory overtime. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on June 19, 2002 02:18:19 PM new
snowyegret - Somehow I feel my statement is not being taken the way it was meant. What I am trying to say is that unions have [in the past] brought about positive changes. I didn't mean to imply, nor did I say, everything's wonderful. I said [or tried to] that there are millions of American's who work for corporations who are and have been very happy with the way the corp. treated them.
On your nurse issue, I agree patient care should be put first. But, as in every aspect of life money/cost is a factor. I believe that with their protesting and patients complaining needed changes will come about. Ten years ago [?? maybe less] nurses were striking about these same issues you are speaking of. The HMOs were forcing doctors to work more hours also. Forcing them to see more patients in a day.
So what is the nurse's union doing about this? Why aren't the nurses walking out - striking? Management can't handle the patient load for a very long period of time. [Even though they too, are usually qualified to do so.] Please share it from your prospective.
Maybe that's why nurses are leaving the field or using their nursing skills in other ways.
posted on June 19, 2002 02:31:19 PM new
The unionized employes are striking. There was a long strike in Nyack NY a while back, and a very heated strike in Tom's River NJ. Go to a right to work state that has no unions like Tx, and conditions are much worse. Very unsafe staffing. If you work non union, you are SOL. Now management is usually not qualified to staff a specialty unit. Clinical nurses and mangement take very different tracks. But they think nothing of pulling employess that do not have the required qualifications to work in those specialty units. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on June 19, 2002 03:00:24 PM new
It's frustrating, I know. My mother was a nurse at the VA hsp. in LA county for quite a few years [in the 50s. If still alive, she'd be 83]. When she first started working there, they had one RN to each ward. Pretty soon they had each RN responsible for 2 wards, then 3 wards. That's when she chose to go into Industrial Nursing. Wanted more patient contact/care giving...rather than spending the majority of her time doing the paper work and passing out meds.
When the nurses I spoke of were on strike...most of the patients thought they were striking for higher wages. They didn't seem to 'get' that it was about reduced patient care.
I'm finally back after two days of meetings. Yuck!
What you found about Mary Jones varies a little from what I found. I'd have to get my notes out to quote the chapters, articles, books and excuse me for being lazy but I'll just sumerize what I remember. She was married to the same guy but they lived in one of the camps which charged you to live there and your food. You know the epitome of industrial slavery. I am under the impression that when her husband died in the yellow fever epidemic she was basically kicked out. I think some or all of her children died, too. She tried to get help but was turned away hence the Knight's of Columbus which at that time was a Catholic group. She was given some money to become a seamstress, went to Chicago, a big Catholic stronghold and opened her shop. She was burned out and very pro to the workers. I believe she came to the forfront because of her personality and the men saw her as a person no one would shoot. She may have been a Socialist but maybe a Socialist was needed at that time. Remember we are a melting pot. I'm not going to quibble her politics. What she did should be in every history book for our daughters.
As for her being against women's sufferage. She may have been on the surface. You have to remember she was working with men who were against it. I think she was playing politics and that is why it is not mentioned in her autobiography which I find suspicious in content.
You have to remember that the Irish were on par with the slaves, pre Civil War and freed slaves after the Civil War. I think a lot of it had to do with them being Catholic and in those times Catholics were very discriminated against so she had that against her plus being a woman against her.
I truly do salute her for overcoming the odds against her and sticking it to the men who thought she should stay barefoot and pregnant. The owners of the companies. I think you do too.
posted on June 20, 2002 01:34:03 AM new
I think that there is a lot of ground for having both socialistic and capitalist aspects simulataneously to our economy and work. Instead of going head-to-head, or swinging far to the left or to the right, there is a lot to be said for both systems if used in moderation. Too much socialism styfles a lot of incentive and creativity and too much raw capitalism creates class struggles. What makes Capitalism work is when it is placed in a field that is abundant with competitors. However, it is the natural tendancy of capitalistic competition to weed out bad competitors and to absorb other competitors. When it acheives a majority in marketshare is when capitalism becomes a problem. Certainly, monopolies are the end result of capitalism and create the worst problems for everyone. Socialism sovles that problem by taking over monopolies for the public good, simply because monopolies by their nature are not benign to consumers or workers. The airlines are a great example of that. As the airlines merge into what is now two or three Lion Share airlines, the service has bottomed out. After Bush hurried to go give the airlines a 20 billion dollar bailout, they STILL fired all of those employeees and the management all got tremendous raises and bonuses! And how has service been since then? Better or worse? The airlines would, in my opinion, be better off being owned by the public, rather than private ownership. That's the good of socialism for consumers.
posted on June 20, 2002 10:17:58 AM new"there are millions of American's who work for corporations who are and have been very happy with the way the corp. treated them".
Dopey as ever, do you miss it that happy land would not exist were it not for the initial efforts and continuing presence of the unions? That corporations that treat workforces well for the bst part do so begrudgingly and would stop that in a flash were the everpresent threat of stoppages and other mechanisms were lifted. That's not the tumultous past, thats the negotiated and fragile peace of the present.
posted on June 20, 2002 10:26:30 AM new
So true, KRS! These uneducated (stupid?) Republicans think that unions are a bothersome nuisence and are not necessary, but styfle production and ingenuity of large corporations. They often believe that the unions are unnecessary and everyone could do without them and the corporations would take care of the workers just as good. What a *LAUGH*! Lies upon lies upon lies to their little black and white world of fantasies! It all relies upon their being uneducated and stupid to have that opinion! Remember in 1980 when the unions voted for Ronald Reagan, because he promised to support the Unions and the workers? Instead, when he became President, he turned right around and destroyed them! *THAT* is what you get for TRUSTING the GOP and any Republican! Backstabbers! And we're supposed to believe in the benevolence of corporations to tazke care of their wrokers?? WeeeeHahahahahahaaa!
posted on June 20, 2002 03:19:32 PM new
Sorry I missed you Calamity....The first article I read was different in several ways than the first link I posted. But hey...what a gutsy woman she was. Don't work too hard.
TTYL
