Marc Phillips wrote:

snippage for brevity

What cracks me up is how terified everyone has been
conditioned to be of unions, when union membership is at an
all time low. Almost everything that occurs in the economy
and the job market has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with unions, yet they get blamed for all of the job woes in
America.


I've never really given much thought to the unions until now, so I haven't been
conditioned to fear them. I did receive training about unions when I managed a
Toys R Us about ten years ago, and the approach was definitely anti-union. I
do agree, however, that unions really have no place in a retail environment,
since there is so much competition for employment (i.e., if you don't like your
job, get another one), and most retail businesses figured out a long time ago
that it's just easier to treat your employees right in the first place.

We will disagree on this point, rather sharply. Retail
businesses have zero incentive to treat their workers well.
In fact, for anything other than very small businesses, the
trend is exactly the opposite. Think Walmart forcing
employees to work unpaid overtime, and mangers altering
their time cards. Think low wages, and if you don't like it,
move on to the next dead end, low wage, abusive job. In this
regard, these companies demonstrate the worst American style
capitalism has to offer, and it is rampant through the
retail sector.

Yes, there is competition for those ****ty jobs, and the
employers know it. Why do you think they were so virulently
anti-union? And remain so today?


Unions are very important in certain situations, such as when there's a small
town with a large corporation that drives the local economy. (Flint, Michigan,
anyone?) They are also very important historically. But I know too many union
people these days who feel that the unions don't do enough for them, especially
when it counts. There is a consensus in many occupational fields that the time
for union involvement is past. Retail is one of those fields.

If a union is failing its members, they have mechanisms to
change the leadership. Some unions are more useful and
responsive to their members, and are more progressive when
it comes to loking at the economic sector they are in, what
the company situations are like, and making good choices.
Some unions are corrupt, or have little impact. The latter
can be their own fault, but sometimes it is the
circumstances between themselves and the companies who
employ their members.


I take your example of Flint, but turn it around. What about
huge employers who are omnipresent throughout the economy,
geographically speaking? They hold a lot of power when it
comes to affecting wage rates across entire regions when
they employ so many people, and they tend to drive wages
down, but not only at their own stores. In the meantime,
profits continue to climb. The disparity is the reason for
unions.

I don't want a long argument, Marc, we just see this
differently. My main point in jumping on this has to do with
the demonizing of unions in America, when in fact, they are
very small and pretty weak when considered against the
number of people employed in the entire economy. I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

chuckle

It was fun to watch the strike at Yale this past summer.

Nexus 6

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

These guys are striking because they're going to have to pay
a $5 to $15 co-payment, something I and a majority of other health plan
participants already have to do.

Is that the only issue??
If the family sees a doctor 10 times, that's only $150.
That equates to 7 1/2 cents an hour, over a year.
They are striking over inconsequential economics?
Not being out there, I am not keeping up.
But it seems to me that there must be other issues.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6 wrote:


Something else to think about - health benefits are skyrocketing in cost
as a result of massive profiteering by compan ies connected to that
industry....perhaps these strikers are out in front of this issue, which
will effect your company, and all the others that you say are now
suffering.

Yet Kroger, the parent company of Ralphs and such - made over three BILLION
in profits last year. That's over a billion surplus after expenses and
aquisitions and everything else was factored in.

They are making huge profits and get anal about a few benefits?

"Aw - we can't compete! We'd only make ONE Billion a year in profits instead
of three!"

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...


These guys are striking because they're going to have to pay
a $5 to $15 co-payment, something I and a majority of other health plan
participants already have to do.


Is that the only issue??
If the family sees a doctor 10 times, that's only $150.
That equates to 7 1/2 cents an hour, over a year.
They are striking over inconsequential economics?
Not being out there, I am not keeping up.
But it seems to me that there must be other issues.

The other part of the problem and the MAIN sticking point,
which you see glossed over in the news is the pension fund.

They borrowed more than half of it and now are not wanting
to replace it as part of their "proposal". That's over
200 million in the pension fund gone - and what really got
them to strike.

It's much more involved than medical benefits.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

These guys are striking because they're going to have to pay
a $5 to $15 co-payment, something I and a majority of other health plan
participants already have to do.

Is that the only issue??
If the family sees a doctor 10 times, that's only $150.
That equates to 7 1/2 cents an hour, over a year.
They are striking over inconsequential economics?
Not being out there, I am not keeping up.
But it seems to me that there must be other issues.

The copay is a small piece. The contract proposal limits
the stores insurance expense. The union projects that by the
end of the contract period, the rocketing cost of healthcare will
mean the store will only be able to provide a plan that would
pay 50% of hospitalization. The Stores argue but still, the contract
proposal I saw does not guarantee coverage, only how much the
stores will spend on health care benefits.

ScottW

Yustabe said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

These guys are striking because they're going to have to pay
a $5 to $15 co-payment, something I and a majority of other health plan
participants already have to do.

Is that the only issue??
If the family sees a doctor 10 times, that's only $150.
That equates to 7 1/2 cents an hour, over a year.
They are striking over inconsequential economics?
Not being out there, I am not keeping up.
But it seems to me that there must be other issues.

There are other issues, but this is the main one. At first I understood. This
was a strike where they didn't want more, but just wanted to protect what they
had, which is understandable. But out in the real world, health care costs
have gotten more expensive for everyone, including other unions. It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

Boon

Nexus said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

snippage for brevity

What cracks me up is how terified everyone has been
conditioned to be of unions, when union membership is at an
all time low. Almost everything that occurs in the economy
and the job market has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with unions, yet they get blamed for all of the job woes in
America.


I've never really given much thought to the unions until now, so I haven't
been
conditioned to fear them. I did receive training about unions when I
managed a
Toys R Us about ten years ago, and the approach was definitely anti-union.
I
do agree, however, that unions really have no place in a retail
environment,
since there is so much competition for employment (i.e., if you don't like
your
job, get another one), and most retail businesses figured out a long time
ago
that it's just easier to treat your employees right in the first place.

We will disagree on this point, rather sharply. Retail
businesses have zero incentive to treat their workers well.
In fact, for anything other than very small businesses, the
trend is exactly the opposite. Think Walmart forcing
employees to work unpaid overtime, and mangers altering
their time cards. Think low wages, and if you don't like it,
move on to the next dead end, low wage, abusive job. In this
regard, these companies demonstrate the worst American style
capitalism has to offer, and it is rampant through the
retail sector.

That's true, but we are talking about Southern California's job market
specifically. Walmart's sleazy business practices sort of reflect what I've
mentioned before about the little town/big company mentality. Our client got
in trouble for similar abuses last year, but it wasn't in SoCal, and it was
mostly restricted to management.

Remember, I was in restaurant and retail management for 18 years, in several
different markets across the country. If you didn't treat your employees
right, they'd leave in a hurry. If you didn't treat your employees right in
SoCal, they'd sue your ass. It's in the company's best interest to treat
employees with respect, because working for a company with high turnover really
sucks.


Yes, there is competition for those ****ty jobs, and the
employers know it. Why do you think they were so virulently
anti-union? And remain so today?

Cha-ching, I imagine. Still, look at companies like In-N-Out and Ikea, who
treat their employees well and pay them well above average for their respective
markets. Those company's success is directly related to that, and other
companies see that and use it as a model.



Unions are very important in certain situations, such as when there's a
small
town with a large corporation that drives the local economy. (Flint,
Michigan,
anyone?) They are also very important historically. But I know too many
union
people these days who feel that the unions don't do enough for them,
especially
when it counts. There is a consensus in many occupational fields that the
time
for union involvement is past. Retail is one of those fields.

If a union is failing its members, they have mechanisms to
change the leadership. Some unions are more useful and
responsive to their members, and are more progressive when
it comes to loking at the economic sector they are in, what
the company situations are like, and making good choices.
Some unions are corrupt, or have little impact. The latter
can be their own fault, but sometimes it is the
circumstances between themselves and the companies who
employ their members.

What I'm seeing is member apathy. When quizzed, usually they repeat something
about the historical importance of unions rather than what being a union member
really means to them.



I take your example of Flint, but turn it around. What about
huge employers who are omnipresent throughout the economy,
geographically speaking? They hold a lot of power when it
comes to affecting wage rates across entire regions when
they employ so many people, and they tend to drive wages
down, but not only at their own stores. In the meantime,
profits continue to climb. The disparity is the reason for
unions.

I don't want a long argument, Marc, we just see this
differently. My main point in jumping on this has to do with
the demonizing of unions in America, when in fact, they are
very small and pretty weak when considered against the
number of people employed in the entire economy. I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

chuckle

It was fun to watch the strike at Yale this past summer.


Yup, Nex. I'm used to not seeing eye-to-eye on this issue. The guy who works
with me is retired Pac Bell, thirty years, and we see very different on this
issue, too. But last night, we tried to cross a picket line just trying to
work, and we both felt uncomfortable as hell. He said to me, "I completely
support these guys and what they're doing, but you have a mortgage and I have
child support, and this kinda sucks." What I'm talking about isn't the
academics of unions and how they work, but the rippling effect they have on
others.

Boon

Boonie wrote:

These guys are striking because they're going to have to pay
a $5 to $15 co-payment, something I and a majority of other health plan
participants already have to do.

Is that the only issue??
If the family sees a doctor 10 times, that's only $150.
That equates to 7 1/2 cents an hour, over a year.
They are striking over inconsequential economics?
Not being out there, I am not keeping up.
But it seems to me that there must be other issues.

There are other issues, but this is the main one. At first I understood. This
was a strike where they didn't want more, but just wanted to protect what they
had, which is understandable. But out in the real world, health care costs
have gotten more expensive for everyone, including other unions. It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

This seems to be a good, credible economic primer on the situation:

http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_n...369807,00.html


GeoSynch

GeoSynch said:

This seems to be a good, credible economic primer on the situation:


http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_n...369807,00.html

It does, but I've seen a lot of conflicting reports on the situation. The $12
to $14 an hour average is much lower than other estimates I've seen, but they
may be due to differences between the three grocery chains. Also, courtesy
clerks may skew the average down, since they represent the most numerous
position in the store, and like I've said, these are teenagers who are making
$8 or $9 an hour at most.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

GeoSynch said:


This seems to be a good, credible economic primer on the situation:


http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_n...369807,00.html


It does, but I've seen a lot of conflicting reports on the situation. The $12
to $14 an hour average is much lower than other estimates I've seen, but they
may be due to differences between the three grocery chains. Also, courtesy
clerks may skew the average down, since they represent the most numerous
position in the store, and like I've said, these are teenagers who are making
$8 or $9 an hour at most.

Don't forget that few employees work 40 hours a week. So, it's closer to
$10-$12 and hour compared to full-time work.

Nexus 6 said:

I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages for
a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions the
stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait several
years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a fully
loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not required to
replace him or her with another full-timer.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Nexus 6 said:

I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages for
a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions the
stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait several
years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a fully
loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not required to
replace him or her with another full-timer.

Your intimate knowledge of the pay and working conditions for bag boys is
noted, Middius. This suggests that your strategy for finding "houseboys" is
to simply offer them a better deal than they get down at the corner
supermarket.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:15:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Nexus 6 said:

I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages for
a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions the
stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait several
years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a fully
loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not required to
replace him or her with another full-timer.

Your intimate knowledge of the pay and working conditions for bag boys is
noted, Middius. This suggests that your strategy for finding "houseboys" is
to simply offer them a better deal than they get down at the corner
supermarket.

You should quit while you're this far behind, Arnold.

dave weil said:

Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a fully
loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not required to
replace him or her with another full-timer.

Your intimate knowledge of the pay and working conditions for bag boys is
noted, Middius. This suggests that your strategy for finding "houseboys" is
to simply offer them a better deal than they get down at the corner
supermarket.

You should quit while you're this far behind, Arnold.

I believe Turdy is airing his sexual fantasies in public again....

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:15:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Nexus 6 said:

I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages
for a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions
the stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait
several years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a
fully loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not
required to replace him or her with another full-timer.

Your intimate knowledge of the pay and working conditions for bag
boys is noted, Middius. This suggests that your strategy for finding
"houseboys" is to simply offer them a better deal than they get down
at the corner supermarket.

You should quit while you're this far behind, Arnold.


Given the turn-out by RAO's Middius apologetics department (asa lame as it
currently is), I'd say it was a direct hit.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:35:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:15:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Nexus 6 said:

I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages
for a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions
the stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait
several years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a
fully loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not
required to replace him or her with another full-timer.

Your intimate knowledge of the pay and working conditions for bag
boys is noted, Middius. This suggests that your strategy for finding
"houseboys" is to simply offer them a better deal than they get down
at the corner supermarket.

You should quit while you're this far behind, Arnold.


Given the turn-out by RAO's Middius apologetics department (asa lame as it
currently is), I'd say it was a direct hit.

If, by turn-out, you mean my single post, I'd have to say that you're
really stretching at this point.

Give up while you're still this far behind, Arnold.

Joseph Oberlander said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

GeoSynch said:


This seems to be a good, credible economic primer on the situation:



http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_n...CS_226_2369807,
00.html


It does, but I've seen a lot of conflicting reports on the situation. The
$12
to $14 an hour average is much lower than other estimates I've seen, but
they
may be due to differences between the three grocery chains. Also, courtesy
clerks may skew the average down, since they represent the most numerous
position in the store, and like I've said, these are teenagers who are
making
$8 or $9 an hour at most.

Don't forget that few employees work 40 hours a week. So, it's closer to
$10-$12 and hour compared to full-time work.

Again, that refers mostly to courtesy clerks, who are mostly teenagers. The
majority of cashiers, stock people, and department heads are full time. Like
most retail outfits, you have to work toward the full-time postions.

I've spent some time looking at their posted schedules when I eat lunch in
their breakrooms, in case anyone wonders how I know.

Boon

Arny said:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:15:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Nexus 6 said:

I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!

Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages
for a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions
the stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait
several years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a
fully loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not
required to replace him or her with another full-timer.

Your intimate knowledge of the pay and working conditions for bag
boys is noted, Middius. This suggests that your strategy for finding
"houseboys" is to simply offer them a better deal than they get down
at the corner supermarket.

You should quit while you're this far behind, Arnold.


Given the turn-out by RAO's Middius apologetics department (asa lame as it
currently is), I'd say it was a direct hit.

In your addled, twisted mind, it would have to be, otherwise you wouldn't make
such desperate statements.

Boon

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...
Nexus 6 wrote:


Something else to think about - health benefits are skyrocketing in cost
as a result of massive profiteering by compan ies connected to that
industry....perhaps these strikers are out in front of this issue, which
will effect your company, and all the others that you say are now
suffering.

Yet Kroger, the parent company of Ralphs and such - made over three
BILLION
in profits last year. That's over a billion surplus after expenses and
aquisitions and everything else was factored in.

They are making huge profits and get anal about a few benefits?

"Aw - we can't compete! We'd only make ONE Billion a year in profits
instead
of three!"
\

And the annuity to be paid from the profits from your IRA goes down
a few dollars a month.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...


These guys are striking because they're going to have to pay
a $5 to $15 co-payment, something I and a majority of other health plan
participants already have to do.


Is that the only issue??
If the family sees a doctor 10 times, that's only $150.
That equates to 7 1/2 cents an hour, over a year.
They are striking over inconsequential economics?
Not being out there, I am not keeping up.
But it seems to me that there must be other issues.

The other part of the problem and the MAIN sticking point,
which you see glossed over in the news is the pension fund.

They borrowed more than half of it and now are not wanting
to replace it as part of their "proposal". That's over
200 million in the pension fund gone - and what really got
them to strike.

It's much more involved than medical benefits.


Thanks, I thought so.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

Boon

What about audio salesmen?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Marc Phillips wrote:

Nexus said:

snip

It was fun to watch the strike at Yale this past summer.



Yup, Nex. I'm used to not seeing eye-to-eye on this issue. The guy who works
with me is retired Pac Bell, thirty years, and we see very different on this
issue, too. But last night, we tried to cross a picket line just trying to
work, and we both felt uncomfortable as hell. He said to me, "I completely
support these guys and what they're doing, but you have a mortgage and I have
child support, and this kinda sucks." What I'm talking about isn't the
academics of unions and how they work, but the rippling effect they have on
others.

I take your comments, Marc. There is a ripple effect, as
there is when decent unions (note the distinction) collapse
or are crushed. It cuts both ways.

ScottW mentioned the pension issue, which does alter the
landscape in this strike somewhat.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius wrote:


Nexus 6 said:


I do take
your point about the fallout, though I am shocked if
California grocery cashiers are making as much as $25 and
hour. ****, I'll have to change jobs and move out to Lotusland!


Doesn't seem very farfetched to me. Where I live (and where you used
to live), the grocery unions have a stranglehold on the two biggest
chains. The most senior staffers make $30. I think starting wages for
a full-time cashier is $18. Of course, one of the concessions the
stores have gotten in recent years is the ability to wait several
years before converting a "part-time" employee to full time.
Part-timers work up to 32 hours a week with no benefits. When a fully
loaded employee retires or leaves, the employers are not required to
replace him or her with another full-timer.

The part time situation was part of the Clinton Jobs
Miracle, wherein 80% or more of the millions of jobs created
during his tenure were of the benfitless, part time variety.

I suspect, if there is any recovery during Shrubs first
term, it will be of the same quality.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...


It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

Boon


What about audio salesmen?

chuckle

I've done that for a living, and it ain't cushy, especially
for the pay.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6 said:

It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

What about audio salesmen?

I've done that for a living, and it ain't cushy, especially
for the pay.

Grocery work ain't cushy either. Who's that you replied to? They
work their butts off. Cashiers have to stand at a register, doing
the same monotonous thing, for up to three hours at a time. No
sitting, note. No coffee breaks. It's not like a steel mill, but
neither is it like the office work most of us do. (Offense intended
to Krooger.)

George M. Middius wrote:


Nexus 6 said:


It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.


What about audio salesmen?



I've done that for a living, and it ain't cushy, especially
for the pay.


Grocery work ain't cushy either. Who's that you replied to? They
work their butts off. Cashiers have to stand at a register, doing
the same monotonous thing, for up to three hours at a time. No
sitting, note. No coffee breaks. It's not like a steel mill, but
neither is it like the office work most of us do. (Offense intended
to Krooger.)

I know it ain't cushy - my audio jobs often requirted
standing on my feet ten hours a day without a minute sitting
down. Not as repetitive, but hey.

It was Marc & Art I was replying to.

Nexus 6

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Nexus 6 said:

It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

What about audio salesmen?

I've done that for a living, and it ain't cushy, especially
for the pay.

Grocery work ain't cushy either. Who's that you replied to? They
work their butts off. Cashiers have to stand at a register, doing
the same monotonous thing, for up to three hours at a time. No
sitting, note. No coffee breaks. It's not like a steel mill, but
neither is it like the office work most of us do. (Offense intended
to Krooger.)

In France the cashiers are seated. More humane, no?

Stephen

Mr. Middius said:

Nexus 6 said:

It boils down
to the fact that grocery workers have one of the cushiest jobs you can
get
without a college degree, and they want to keep it that way.

What about audio salesmen?

I've done that for a living, and it ain't cushy, especially
for the pay.

Grocery work ain't cushy either. Who's that you replied to? They
work their butts off. Cashiers have to stand at a register, doing
the same monotonous thing, for up to three hours at a time. No
sitting, note. No coffee breaks. It's not like a steel mill, but
neither is it like the office work most of us do. (Offense intended
to Krooger.)

To be fair, it isn't easy, but it does pay well. I do see cashiers wearing
wrist braces from CTS, and I'm sure they have their share of foot and lower
back problems from standing all day. But I'm reminded of Mr. Pink in Reservoir
Dogs, when he outlines the differences between a waitress, and someone who
works in a fast food restaurant. "They're both serving you food, right?"

There's a lot of minimum wage earners who are doing much more difficult work
than grocery store cashiers. And grocery store cashiers do get coffee breaks,
and they also get to keep their drinks, their purses, and maybe even the
occasional sandwich at their checkstands with them. I know, because I usually
have to move all of their **** out of the way when I have to troubleshoot a
register.

Boon

Nex said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Nexus said:

snip

It was fun to watch the strike at Yale this past summer.



Yup, Nex. I'm used to not seeing eye-to-eye on this issue. The guy who
works
with me is retired Pac Bell, thirty years, and we see very different on
this
issue, too. But last night, we tried to cross a picket line just trying to
work, and we both felt uncomfortable as hell. He said to me, "I completely
support these guys and what they're doing, but you have a mortgage and I
have
child support, and this kinda sucks." What I'm talking about isn't the
academics of unions and how they work, but the rippling effect they have on
others.

I take your comments, Marc. There is a ripple effect, as
there is when decent unions (note the distinction) collapse
or are crushed. It cuts both ways.

ScottW mentioned the pension issue, which does alter the
landscape in this strike somewhat.

FWIW, the grocery stores maintain that the pension really won't be affected.
The union's position is that the new deal creates more opportunities for the
pensions to be compromised. To tell the truth, there's a lot of propaganda on
both sides, but the grocery stores appear to be more forthcoming IMO.

Boon

MiNE 109 wrote:

In article ,

In France the cashiers are seated. More humane, no?

Shocking!

In Japan they get to sit down, too.

And have little rubber thingies on their fingertips to help
deal with the money.

I once got chased down the street by a Japanese grocery
cashier for an error she made - 30 yen, at the time less
than 12 cents.

Nexus 6

Marc Phillips wrote:

Nex said:

FWIW, the grocery stores maintain that the pension really won't be affected.
The union's position is that the new deal creates more opportunities for the
pensions to be compromised. To tell the truth, there's a lot of propaganda on
both sides, but the grocery stores appear to be more forthcoming IMO.

In light of the major disasters company after company have
made of pension funds, I tend to disbelieve what they have
to say about them.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6 said:

Grocery work ain't cushy either. Who's that you replied to? They
work their butts off. Cashiers have to stand at a register, doing
the same monotonous thing, for up to three hours at a time. No
sitting, note. No coffee breaks. It's not like a steel mill, but
neither is it like the office work most of us do. (Offense intended
to Krooger.)

I know it ain't cushy - my audio jobs often requirted
standing on my feet ten hours a day without a minute sitting
down. Not as repetitive, but hey.

It was Marc & Art I was replying to.

Let's hear from Marc and/or Art, then, about how grocery workers
have cushy jobs. I'll grant the pay is good for the skills required,
but I want to hear an explication of the "cushiness".

MiNE 109 said:

Grocery work ain't cushy either. Who's that you replied to? They
work their butts off. Cashiers have to stand at a register, doing
the same monotonous thing, for up to three hours at a time. No
sitting, note. No coffee breaks. It's not like a steel mill, but
neither is it like the office work most of us do. (Offense intended
to Krooger.)

In France the cashiers are seated. More humane, no?

Mais oui.

Nexus 6 said:

FWIW, the grocery stores maintain that the pension really won't be affected.
The union's position is that the new deal creates more opportunities for the
pensions to be compromised. To tell the truth, there's a lot of propaganda on
both sides, but the grocery stores appear to be more forthcoming IMO.

In light of the major disasters company after company have
made of pension funds, I tend to disbelieve what they have
to say about them.

Notice that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a quasi-governmental
agency, has been taking over underfunded pensions at an alarming
rate in the past 10 years.

Another example of the marketplace policing itself, no doubt.

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:etUob.20242$d87.8038@okepread05...



The part time situation was part of the Clinton Jobs
Miracle, wherein 80% or more of the millions of jobs created
during his tenure were of the benfitless, part time variety.

I suspect, if there is any recovery during Shrubs first
term, it will be of the same quality.

Nexus 6


Maybe the working poor are the ones who need job creation the most.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:etUob.20242$d87.8038@okepread05...


The part time situation was part of the Clinton Jobs
Miracle, wherein 80% or more of the millions of jobs created
during his tenure were of the benfitless, part time variety.

I suspect, if there is any recovery during Shrubs first
term, it will be of the same quality.

Nexus 6



Maybe the working poor are the ones who need job creation the most.

Certainly.

Real, full time jobs with benefits.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius wrote:


Nexus 6 said:


FWIW, the grocery stores maintain that the pension really won't be affected.
The union's position is that the new deal creates more opportunities for the
pensions to be compromised. To tell the truth, there's a lot of propaganda on
both sides, but the grocery stores appear to be more forthcoming IMO.

In light of the major disasters company after company have
made of pension funds, I tend to disbelieve what they have
to say about them.


Notice that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a quasi-governmental
agency, has been taking over underfunded pensions at an alarming
rate in the past 10 years.

Pension fundsa have turned into a major scam.

Like mutual funds, brokerages, the legalized national
gambling venue known colloquially as the stock market have.


Another example of the marketplace policing itself, no doubt.

The Invisible Hand!

Nexus 6

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

To be fair, it isn't easy, but it does pay well. I do see cashiers
wearing
wrist braces from CTS, and I'm sure they have their share of foot and
lower
back problems from standing all day. But I'm reminded of Mr. Pink in
Reservoir
Dogs, when he outlines the differences between a waitress, and someone
who
works in a fast food restaurant. "They're both serving you food, right?"

There's a lot of minimum wage earners who are doing much more difficult
work
than grocery store cashiers. And grocery store cashiers do get coffee
breaks,
and they also get to keep their drinks, their purses, and maybe even the
occasional sandwich at their checkstands with them. I know, because I
usually
have to move all of their **** out of the way when I have to troubleshoot
a
register.

Cashiers are history and they know it. I like the self checkouts recently
installed
at Home Depot. One security/assistant for 4 checkouts.
Awesome and quick, i.e, no line. If you're too stupid to figure out, go
stand in line for a cashier.

ScottW

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...

In France the cashiers are seated. More humane, no?


Stronger union?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

ScottW said:

Cashiers are history and they know it. I like the self checkouts recently
installed
at Home Depot. One security/assistant for 4 checkouts.
Awesome and quick, i.e, no line. If you're too stupid to figure out, go
stand in line for a cashier.

I just helped install some self checkouts in a grocery store in Paso Robles,
one of the very first for the chain. And the cashiers were grumbling and
muttering under their breaths the whole time.

Boon