gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I would just like to quote this again, in hopes that it will be read. It's smart stuff, seriously.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

I think it is safe to say that you and I agree for the most part.
just to clarify when i said five years i meant total not additional

and it is highly unlikely they will give me a cost of living raise only for the sake of me, it is more likely that they will grow a brain and give the entire shop an an annual cost of living raise because they know it will raise moral among employees. There is more than business that motivates some employers. Some will surely place the pride they have invested in the power they have over you on top of their priority list vs. the effiency that they can achieve with a motivated workforce. Yes I know most people (especially in factories) will often not enjoy their work. Though I have worked in jobs that also paid crappy and often worse pay but by simply treating us with the respect of a human being you could see the difference in their work vs the work of the company I work for.

In a nutshell I fully understand it is their job to make money. What I am now asking you to understand is that employers do exist who can place their personal emotion before the efficiency of their production. We are all human after all.

on the note of market value though i do believe that sometimes even the "fair market value" can be immoral.
here is an extreme example to illustrate my point
3rd world country somewhere
there is only one company around to offer employment
therefore they dictate what "fair market value" is
they have no saftey measures and the toxicity of the labor shortens lives by decades
the men are paid barely enough to feed themselves
and we all know this is a very realistic situation
Can I assume you agree with me that this situation is immoral regardless of what "fair market value" is?
If you do disagree I believe you would have a change of heart if you found yourself in such a situation.

Just as it is I feel it is immoral to not offer a cost of living when you raise your prices to match inflation.

Monopolies are illegal for a reason. Because it is possible to manipulate a market beyond what is considered to be morally acceptable. While a monopoly may be the most extreme and effect to do this, it doesn't require a monopoly.

It doesn't even take shitty compensation for me to consider it to be immoral. It only takes one lie. To ensure one of your employees that they will be in a particular position on a particular machine making a particular rate for an extended period of time. In my case the extended period of time was to be the remainder of my employment. I responded by putting out 1100-1200 peices a day. Those who I did not train put out 600-800 a day. Those who I did train put out 1000+ or - a day.
As a result of my work they moved me to a different shift on a different machine which had a considerable impact on my wages. In turn I had to alter my financial goals therefore changing my plans. Not because the market called for it, because they simply did not hold true to their work.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Once my boss told me to stop using shims on the punches.
The punches requires shims because we were counter sinking holes for screws.
The ram and table were old and uneven and required the shims to make the countersink holes even in depth.
I work for idiots.
The second shift plant manager told me there should be no need for it. I explained to him why I shim the machine. He then told me that the first shift plant manager said I needed to stop doing it. There was only an hour left in the day so I told him "whatever, if they think they can set it up without shims then let them do it". I did not set up the machine nor run any more parts that night because I did not want to be held responsible for the bad parts that would inevitably result from such a set up.
First shift then completed the set up and for the next two days they and I ran the machine without shims. I got with the boss at the beginning of each of those days and showed him the parts and how many of the holes were too deep and many were also too shallow. He told me to continue running it the way that first shift had it set up. After two days first shift management required that we once shim the machine as I had initially started.

About a month later we received about two days worth of work back from one of our customers because...you guessed it...the holes were uneven in depth beyond their tolerances.
Management then made me and someone else who didn't even run the particular machine spend three days reworking the parts for an hourly wage aprox 40% of what I normally made. I confronted my boss about the pay on these parts. He responded "You and Andrew have been chosen to redo these parts on an hourly wage because you and Andrew do not check your parts". Andrew is on first shift and his boss even told him that he knew it was not him who worked the parts. It was me and the girl who ran my machine for first shift.
Ultimately this situation began BECAUSE I checked my parts and compensated for the irregularities of the machine.
I clearly took all the steps nessecary to ensure that a REASONABLE man would not hold me responsible for these errors.
I do not know if their reason for this action is that they are just this big of idiots or they themselves are trying not to get into trouble with the owner. Working there as long as I have and knowing them as well as I do I am certain that it is minimally a little of both.

One could say "Jared, you dont have to put up with that bullshit go get another job".
I would respond and say that first of all it is rather difficult for me to find a job that is willing to pay me based on my performance therefore it would be stupid for me to quit. Like I said it took me years to find this one.

And even if I did do that, others would not follow my example (not enough at least). Many would continue to work there receiving such immoral treatment for extended periods of time for a number of reasons. For one the city I live in is heavily dependent on the RV industry. Expensive luxuries do not fair well in poor economies. Jobs aren't the easiest to come by anymore where I live. This is however no excuse to lower morals for I believe that the market has no place in defining morals. Second they are both not smart enough and also lack the courage it takes to quit your job so that you may devote 40 hrs a week to look for another one.
In a nutshell even if I were to quit for my sake that wouldn't help anyone else. Many people would continue to work for years and receive immoral treatment for extended period of times both because they lack the intelligence to seek another job and they lack the courage to quit their job and seek out a fair employer.
None the less, I do not like to see this happen. My employer is clearly taking advantage of its employees.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Attachment 186443
Attachment 186444
Attachment 186445
Attachment 186446
Attachment 186447
Attachment 186448

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Attachment 186440
Attachment 186441
Attachment 186442

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

jared sounds like you're in a tough spot.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

the point that i am trying to illustrate is that there are certain moral issues that i think a union could help with
things that absolutely are NOT the governments place to do
and no i do not think unions need to be everywhere
i am very pro open shop
i dont agree with ALOT of things that unions do or alot of what results from their actions

but i believe in their freedom to operate in an honest manor (which many don't now)
just as i believe in a corporations freedom to operate in an honest manor
are unions corruptable? yes
can they cause damage? yes
can they buy out politicians? yes
do they have their own problems that need to be fixed? yes
are there laws that work specifically in their favor that are immoral? yes

I fail to understand how the answers to the questions i just presented are different when concerning corporations.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

If such a situation existed, and the employees were TRULY unsatisfied, one of two things would happen:
1. A second company would appear, because labor is cheap, quite possibly started by the workers themselves.
2. The workers would return to living life how they did *before* the "one company" appeared.
But by continuing to work at the "one company", each employee is casting his vote that he would rather work at the company for the compensation they have offered, then not work at the company at all.

There is one third situation:
Physical coersion. If the workers are not free to chose whether or not they will work, often by induced fear, then free market does not exist.


I edited this part
Have you talked to your bosses boss? The CEO/Owner of the company? It sounds like your boss and you are inverted based on experience and sound decision making principals. Unless you've talked to *the* head honcho, there is always someone with more power to talk to. I would be taking notes to present to decision makers at least 2 levels above your current boss as to why your boss should be fired and you should be promoted. The first note should read something like: After repeatedly telling my boss why the manufacture of a product required shims, he finally forced me to make a change. I required someone else to set up the machine without shims because the parts could not be made correctly without the shims. The next day, we operated the machine without shims, and parts were noticably out of tolerance, I brought this to the attention of my boss, and he told me to continue making the parts as-is. Within two days, QC had identified that the parts were unfit for use, and we were again required to use the shims. When the OOT parts were returned from the customer, my boss required that I work the parts at a 40% reduced wage because he claimed that *I* was at fault for the out of tolerance parts. Because of my bosses poor decision making, the company lost two days worth of labor producing this part. Additionally, a prime customer was dissatisifed with the product we produced, which may cost the company more money in lost sales or lower prices in the future. If I were in charge in this situation, I would have identified that the shims were costing money, but instead of making the decision to do away with their use completely, I would have sought a better solution which would have cost less in the long run, such as "insert solution here".

But I agree with brain, you're in a tough spot. If I was in such a situation, I would be spending at least a couple of hours every weekend canvassing other employers.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Michele Bachmann is such a pretentious ----.



This applies to the homosexuality unnatural V reason argument:

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Wow Gearhead, that actually had some information I was unaware of (I.e., source of nuclear family).

Cool video.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

while i don't support bachmen she sure made alot of sense about eliminating the federal dept of education. that just all goes back to how the feds have their nose in waaaayyyy tooooo much ****. we are less of fifty individual states then we used to be. we just keep on moving further and further from the ideas and freedoms our founding fathers intended for us.

and for the penn and teller vid
that has little relevancy
from reading my posts gearhead you already know that i agree with them in that it is none of my business as to who. why, and how they ****.
they have everyright also to raise their own children
i wouldn't even dream of stopping them from that
it would just be wrong

they didn't even touch on rather or not nature actually intends for any of us humans to be non-productive. that show is an entertaining tv show and not too much more. they are biased as ****. when someone speaks of studies they disagree with they dont ask the person to present the studies and then attempt to disprove them (as a reasonable debater would)
and they surely dont teach anyone to think for themselves.
from the VERY FEW episodes i have seen (therefore i may be wrong) they seem to ALWAYS hold a very worldly point of view. here is a penn and teller show in a nutshell
When it comes to insert issue of your choice here the world is right and you are wrong. so just suck it up and agree with the rest of the world dumbass, what the **** do yo know.
it is an entertaining show
im not saying they don't tell the truth, just saying they dont much encourage you to look at the evidence and develop your own views

the only person who posted anything that made any sense on the topic was blaeen99 with his talk of rat studies.
the rat situation being fully reproducible, reproducible? you mean like an experiment in a controlled environment? that makes me question the variables, can you post a link to such studies
and for the homosexuals caring for orphan offspring, well clearly sexual orientation has little if anything to do with this as straights obviously do this as well as it is instinctual for us to care for offspring that are in need. i have seen this in dogs as well as humans. hell even people who do their own reproduction often still take it upon them selves to care for children which are not theirs

this may be one topic that i am a bit closed minded on
surely a study of rats done in the proper manor wont convince me, though i could learn something new
and when baen99 says many species
i wonder how he defines many 5% of species 15? 35? over 50?
it would take ALOT to convince me
call me stupid but it just baffles me that nature would give anyone a *****, *********, and sperm, and they are not to be used for reproduction?
it is like putting a nos button on your steering whee, connecting the lines, and putting in a full bottle just for looks?
and even a study on humans at the caveman level (if such a study) exists wouldn't convince me as us humans obviously think well above the instinctual level

i understand you and I are firmly planted in what we believe to be true based on our own logic
thats great we have developed our own views
i don't expect to change your mind
just as i don't expect you to change mine

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Attachment 186438

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

are we back on homosexuality again?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

lol im done with it
since there were a few posts likely intended for me since i am the only naysayer
and some points were made that were off topic from the only naysayers point of view
i figured i would clarify a thing or two about my opinion

in response to the talking to my bosses boss thing and going at least two levels up
that's really not a bad idea and i should have done that

the chain actually stops at two levels up when you reach the owner. I really should have done that when the original shim incident happened in Jan. of this year. IMO it is too late for that now. and unfortunate cause if i were back on that machine (which i wasn't taken off of for that reason) i would be making 25% more money now.

traditionally the plant manager chews us out (swearing, threats, the works) whenever we go above his head, which makes that a bit more difficult. but not impossible



a bs policy actually got taken down like that when they were firing people because eithor they forgot to clock in/out for lunch or the electronic hand scan time clock had an error. the owner asked someone how he liked it there and he respond with it would be better if he wasn't about to be fired because of the time clocks errors

none the less the owner is fully aware of the other bs policies i have described in earlier posts
things i think a union could help out with

the owner is also young
under 30 for sure
had the company given to him by his parents and he eithor just got done with or is about to finish schooling
i think his lack of experience has something to do with the rules and policies that he allows to be made by the alcoholic plant manager (who comes to work clearly under the influence) that treats us like we are lower than dirt

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'll give you a response to the questions you are asking soonish, Jared.

I'm a bit swamped at the moment, and having to dig up stuff takes a bit of time unfortunately. It's tenfold easier to do a drive-by post then respond with specific details and studies unfortunately.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Since it's late night, I'm bored of GT5, and I remembered I did say I would make this post, I'll start elaborating on previous points. You casual readers will want to skip to the TLDR section, because this will be long.

I'll only be sticking to a small section of the above post a night, however, as there is a great deal of data, starting with rats/mice.

In the 1960s, an experiment was done. Under current laws and policies, we cannot duplicate about half of this experiment (lololexperimental animal abuse, wtf?), and I cannot find a non-pay link to a study, so you'll have to either use your google fu on Rats (Or mice), overpopulation, and homosexuality as there is a lot out there that I frankly don't have the patience to wade through.

This experiment has been duplicated across numerous mice and rat breeds, and even in several other rodent species including rabbits. Proposals have been done for other species, however, due to the time involved (This requires 10+ generations), rodents are virtually required to study this. Now, this study is a fairly simple one. Multiple variables are used: Temperatures, feeding, population density, etc.. Specifically, researchers use every variable they can think of, and adjust it. The only specific variable they can adjust and reproduce the results is the population variable. Specifically, the greater the population density per square meter, the greater the occurance of homosexuality in the population. No other variable, whether it be food, temperature, water, or even day/night cycles can duplicate this.

Here's the interesting part of the experiments: Rodents that display homosexuality retain homosexuality even after the population is drastically reduced. However, future generations created from rodent sperm in vitro from sperm from homosexual parents do not display the homosexuality beyond the expected population average if they are kept in low population density. Further, children from long lines of heterosexual parents display homosexuality in expected percentages when put in and raised in a population-dense (Read: overpopulated) environment.

An interesting sidenote to this has to do with factory-farmed pet store animals. If they are bred in densely overpopulated conditions, well, the pets you see for sale exhibit a remarkably high incidence of homosexuality.

As for personal musings: I've noticed homosexuality appears to have a far greater appearance in more densely populated cities, with it being more and more rare the less densely populated an area is. As I alluded to in my previous post on this topic, I can't help but draw a parallel to this rat experiment.

TLDR: Laws **** research in the ***, homosexuality has at least one significant and proven root related to overpopulation.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

drop the homosexuality stuff. or take it to another thread.

Vashthestampede

iTrader: (17)

Exactly. This is the political "catch all" thread.

Things like this go here.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Can't wait to send my kids to this school:

http://www.publicschoolspending.com/...torWorkers.pdfhttp://www.publicschoolspending.com/...tahFoodTax.pdfhttp://www.publicschoolspending.com/...nWisconsin.pdfThe parent who complained to the School Board was then told:...obviously he didn't listen.


this was a World History class btw.