We all know Unions are just greedy. Always wanting more. I feel bad for the poor corporations who have families to feed and children to take care of. Verizon Jr. is sick, and in need of treatment but those greedy unions are asking for more, and Verizon can't afford to make sure Verizon Jr. gets the treatment he needs.
Quote:You might want to read up on what the workers are striking about. I mean at the end of the day, I know you really don't care and are just gonna side with the corporation, but at least understand both sides of the argument.
And demanding that your employer can't make you travel hundreds of miles away to a site for months at a time, forcing workers to either suffer through it out quit seems like a reasonable negotiating point. The union believes verizon is pushing this measure in order to force attrition and then never fill those positions back in, thus saving money at the price of workers and customer satisfaction.
Also, the fact that Verizon wants to move call centers out of the usa seems like a good thing for American workers to push back against, but hey, I'm just a crazy liberal. I haven't lost enough of my soul to be able to side with Verizon, like you have. As the saying goes, c'est la vie.
However, if you bothered to
read one of the stories that I linked above, you would know that these workers are in a division of the company that actually loses money and costs the company.
Quote:
Most of the striking workers service the company's landline phone business and FiOS broadband network -- not the much larger Verizon Wireless network.
Quote:
t's true that Verizon continues to post record profit, but most of that is coming from its wireless business. The "wireline" business that most CWA workers serve is in decline.
...
Wireline sales have been steadily falling over the past several years. Last year sales fell by nearly 2%, and Verizon lost 1.4 million voice customers.
So this part of the business is failing and in a decline. What should the company do? Offer more money and benefits to workers, or cut the losses? They did
offer a pretty generous deal that the union declined.
Quote:
Verizon said it has offered a wage increase of 7.5 percent and will continue to match employee retirement saving contributions and increase pensions over three years.
Yet the workers in a declining and failing part of the business reject that. So who exactly is being "greedy"?
Quote:With all due respect, jib, I just blew you the heck out in regards to the" facts of the matter". It's clear you have one side's talking points.
But you clearly don't understand what the issues both sides are in conflict over.
Refer to the above.
Quote:We all know Unions are just greedy. Always wanting more. I feel bad for the poor corporations who have families to feed and children to take care of. Verizon Jr. is sick, and in need of treatment but those greedy unions are asking for more, and Verizon can't afford to make sure Verizon Jr. gets the treatment he needs.
Yeah! Corporations ARE people too! But IF they were a family..the Father (CEO) would have steak every night, and his children ( employees ) would the gristle . Hey! Maybe they aren't people after all. Maybe more like King and his Serfs.
Quote:Yeah! Corporations ARE people too! But IF they were a family..the Father (CEO) would have steak every night, and his children ( employees ) would the gristle . Hey! Maybe they aren't people after all. Maybe more like King and his Serfs.
LOL. Just ignore facts (they are pesky) and just go after the "evil 'greedy' CEO's" of companies. After all, a 7% pay increase in a down economy is just not enough! It doesn't matter if the workers happen to be in a poor performing division of the business. They deserve more because the actual part of the business that makes money raises the CEO's earnings!
Quote:LOL. Just ignore facts (they are pesky) and just go after the "evil 'greedy' CEO's" of companies. After all, a 7% pay increase in a down economy is just not enough! It doesn't matter if the workers happen to be in a poor performing division of the business. They deserve more because the actual part of the business that makes money raises the CEO's earnings!
Is it greed if the CEO gets a large % increase in compensation when the company is laying people off?
Is it greed if the CEO gets a large % increase in compensation when the company is doing very well while not rewarding employees?
Quote:LOL, you asked, and I pointed out something that you ignored. You would have continued to ignore it, unless I called it out. But whatever... It's all good. You have your own blind spot. I'm sure I have mine.
Though I cannot remember the last time you mentioned something that I said that you could despute. Where as I've provided many instances where your bias has been flat out wrong.
And let me do it again right here...
"Although the nominal value of the minimum wage was increased by $5.65 (from $1.60 to $7.25) between 1968 and 2009, these legislated adjustments did not enable the minimum wage to keep pace with the increase in consumer prices, so the real minimum wage fell." <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf'>https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf</a>
I know that badger is gonna freak out that I'm providing facts with a cited source. But guess what-- facts determine what is real and what isn't.
You and Oface are the same poster with differing ideologies. Both of you take bits and pieces of the truth to skew reality in order for it to fit your own pre-conceived world view. You know some things and then you leave out other things in order to make your point.
Oface does it for climate change, you do it for all things "conservative". It's rather sad, but easily debunked. I did it to you as well in terms of "taxes" and the administrative cost to a business.
I'm doing it to you again here with the minimum wage. The real value of the minimum wage has decreased dramatically over time. Productivity and profits of business has increased over time. Deal with the facts, my friend. Supply side economics does not work.
I'm gonna start calling you jj-face... 
Say what? Why don't you google climate change and/or global warming and get your facts straight and stop comparing me to JJ, please? My God, man.
Yeah!!!! Wait.... What? Lol!
Quote:However, if you bothered to read one of the stories that I linked above, you would know that these workers are in a division of the company that actually loses money and costs the company.
So this part of the business is failing and in a decline. What should the company do? Offer more money and benefits to workers, or cut the losses? They did offer a pretty generous deal that the union declined.
Yet the workers in a declining and failing part of the business reject that. So who exactly is being "greedy"?
Refer to the above.
I never read Uncle Tom's Cabin. But the way your interpret things makes me really want to download that book and read it...
Quote:Is it greed if the CEO gets a large % increase in compensation when the company is laying people off?
Is it greed if the CEO gets a large % increase in compensation when the company is doing very well while not rewarding employees?
Yes it's greed, but greed is not illegal. I don't see how admitting its greed changes anything?
Quote:Yeah! Corporations ARE people too! But IF they were a family..the Father (CEO) would have steak every night, and his children ( employees ) would the gristle . Hey! Maybe they aren't people after all. Maybe more like King and his Serfs.
Most corporations consist of less then 20 employees
Quote:Most corporations consist of less then 20 employees
Yea but the 5 big ones rule the roost, actual people be damned.
Quote:Yea but the 5 big ones rule the roost, actual people be damned.
I'm just saying if you want to have an honest discussion about corporations you have to acknowledge the implications on the majority of small corporations. Are monoploy corporations a problem? Yes thanks to government and mega corporations abusing anti-monoply laws.
Quote:I never read Uncle Tom's Cabin. But the way your interpret things makes me really want to download that book and read it...
I'm not sure what the book has to do with the discussion, but then again... it is you.
Quote:Is it greed if the CEO gets a large % increase in compensation when the company is laying people off?
Is it greed if the CEO gets a large % increase in compensation when the company is doing very well while not rewarding employees?
The way that I look at it, if these workers are actually making the company money and helping the company turn a big profit, then yes absolutely they should be rewarded with higher pay and benefits. However, they are in a losing division of the company and pretty much costing the company money. Is it smart to reward a losing effort? A wage increase of 7.5 percent as well as matching employee retirement saving contributions and increase pensions over three years isn't enough? If I was the CEO of Verizon I would basically say the same thing that he is saying. "Screw these spoiled workers" and either hire non-union employees or outsource.
To answer your first question, no it isn't greed in this case because people aren't getting laid off, they are striking. The CEO is doing the right thing by not bending to unreasonable demands from employees in a losing division.
To answer your second question, no it's not greed when the CEO gets an increase in compensation if the company is doing well. That's his or her job... for the company to make money. I also would say that in today's economy, a 7.5% increase in wages is pretty generous for a company to offer. Yet, it's not enough for the greedy workers (unions).
The bottom line is, the CEO of Verizon is doing the job correctly and deserves any bonus that he or she gets.
You keep saying they're in a losing division of the company, but that division of the company provided 8.9 billion dollars in operating profits last year.
Quote:You keep saying they're in a losing division of the company, but that division of the company provided 8.9 billion dollars in operating profits last year.
Operating "profits"? I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. A link or a source would be nice.
Here is what I read from multiple sites.
Quote:
It's true that Verizon continues to post record profit, but most of that is coming from its wireless business
. The "wireline" business that most CWA workers serve is in decline
.
Wireline sales have been steadily falling
over the past several years. Last year sales fell by nearly 2%, and Verizon lost 1.4 million voice customers.
To help make up for the losses
, Verizon continues to offload some of its wireline assets, and it has been offshoring some of its workers overseas. The company says it saved $300 million in employee costs in 2015.
So were there supposed "profits" out of that division? Maybe so, but it's probably more due to getting rid of the "bad assets" and offshoring workers. Why would they do that? Could it possibly be because American workers are/were demanding too much?
Employers do not exist for the benefit of their employees.
Quote:Employers do not exist for the benefit of their employees.
Shhhhhhhhhhh you'll scare the children
Quote:Operating "profits"? I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. A link or a source would be nice. Here is what I read from multiple sites.
So were there supposed "profits" out of that division? Maybe so, but it's probably more due to getting rid of the "bad assets" and offshoring workers. Why would they do that? Could it possibly be because American workers are/were demanding too much?
From your same source:
Still, Verizon managed to post an $8.9 billion operating profit in its wireline business last year. That was down slightly from 2014, but not by much.
But you read the same thing I read. Apparently either not all of it, or you decided it meant whatever you want it to mean, in which case there's no point arguing with you.
BTW that SAME source also lists cutting employees saving only $300 million. Which is nowhere near $8.9 Billion.
To help make up for the losses, Verizon continues to offload some of its wireline assets, and it has been offshoring some of its workers overseas. The company says it saved $300 million in employee costs in 2015.