PDA

View Full Version : Romney likes "Being able to fire people"



mrveggieman
01-09-2012, 04:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-likes-being-able-fire-people-174752665--abc-news.html

pghin08
01-09-2012, 05:06 PM
Boy, people really misconstrued that comment. It's just capitalism. If you, as an individual, don't like the service or product that someone provides you, you simply find a new one. I don't see anything wrong with what Romney said.

mrveggieman
01-09-2012, 05:15 PM
Boy, people really misconstrued that comment. It's just capitalism. If you, as an individual, don't like the service or product that someone provides you, you simply find a new one. I don't see anything wrong with what Romney said.

Agree but I do think that his choice of words were insensitive.

Star_Cards
01-09-2012, 05:31 PM
I don't find the term "fired" insensitive. Sure it's a negative word, but I like being able to fire people that don't do a job that is good enough for me too. It's funny that this should not only apply to health insurance companies but also politicians. It's really impossible to fire a politician without a huge concerted effort by a lot of people when they allow us to vote.

OnePimpTiger
01-09-2012, 08:30 PM
Not a big Romney fan, but as a team leader where several should be fired for incompetence, but can't for anything short of mooning the CEO and public urination in the cafeteria (I'm guessing that would be a firing, not certain though), let me just say amen! I agree with this statement on several levels.

Everyone complains about terrible service in every industry, but when something is actually done to correct it, all of a sudden firing people is a bad thing.

Star_Cards
01-10-2012, 10:40 AM
firing a company or person can sometimes be the only way to get better service or work than they were providing. If only everyone who wasn't performing could be gotten rid of easily.

AUTaxMan
01-10-2012, 11:18 AM
firing a company or person can sometimes be the only way to get better service or work than they were providing. If only everyone who wasn't performing could be gotten rid of easily.

Exactly. This is why unions are generally bad for the country. They ensure that underqualified individuals are paid more than they're worth to do a less-than-stellar job. Not all union members fit this bill, but too many of them do.

Star_Cards
01-10-2012, 11:30 AM
agree. I'm not a big fan of unions. I think these days there are plenty of companies that have non union employees and they take care of their employees just fine. If large companies aren't paying proper wages they typically hurt themselves and chance or are weeded out because of poor service since they can't keep top employees.

mrveggieman
01-10-2012, 11:57 AM
I disagree with the last two posts. Unions are needed as a form of checks and balances. Yes some companies do take care of their employees but many of them do not. If there were no unions involved the employees can change their rules at a whim and the employees would either have to deal with it or find another job. The employeers have too much leverage as it is and unions counteract some of their unfair leverage.

ensbergcollector
01-10-2012, 12:21 PM
I disagree with the last two posts. Unions are needed as a form of checks and balances. Yes some companies do take care of their employees but many of them do not. If there were no unions involved the employees can change their rules at a whim and the employees would either have to deal with it or find another job. The employeers have too much leverage as it is and unions counteract their some of their unfair leverage.

IMO unions have long outlived their purpose. Just a couple of examples:

a friend of mine set up at the national card convention in chicago a few years back. He was told by the convention that he wasn't allowed to plug in his own lap top because "we have a guy that does that." So there was a union guy, whose only job was to plug in stuff for people

2. have multiple friends who are firefighters. Every 3-5 years the firefighters threaten to strike over desired pay increases. 2 of the guys I know have said if it weren't for their union dues, they wouldn't need the raise. The only thing they have seen their union accomplish is take their dues and tell them they need a raise every few years.



i know in some places unions serve a good purpose. But they have ended up protecting the jobs of people who deserve to be fired and getting rich off the very workers they "support"

pghin08
01-10-2012, 12:33 PM
IMO unions have long outlived their purpose. Just a couple of examples:

a friend of mine set up at the national card convention in chicago a few years back. He was told by the convention that he wasn't allowed to plug in his own lap top because "we have a guy that does that." So there was a union guy, whose only job was to plug in stuff for people

2. have multiple friends who are firefighters. Every 3-5 years the firefighters threaten to strike over desired pay increases. 2 of the guys I know have said if it weren't for their union dues, they wouldn't need the raise. The only thing they have seen their union accomplish is take their dues and tell them they need a raise every few years.



i know in some places unions serve a good purpose. But they have ended up protecting the jobs of people who deserve to be fired and getting rich off the very workers they "support"

Don't tell my liberal friends, but I kind of agree. :ashamed0001:

mrveggieman
01-10-2012, 12:55 PM
IMO unions have long outlived their purpose. Just a couple of examples:

a friend of mine set up at the national card convention in chicago a few years back. He was told by the convention that he wasn't allowed to plug in his own lap top because "we have a guy that does that." So there was a union guy, whose only job was to plug in stuff for people

2. have multiple friends who are firefighters. Every 3-5 years the firefighters threaten to strike over desired pay increases. 2 of the guys I know have said if it weren't for their union dues, they wouldn't need the raise. The only thing they have seen their union accomplish is take their dues and tell them they need a raise every few years.



i know in some places unions serve a good purpose. But they have ended up protecting the jobs of people who deserve to be fired and getting rich off the very workers they "support"

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have worked at union as well as non union jobs. The difference is night and day. The union jobs were better pay, better benefits and if the job gave you a hard time the union had your back. Compare that to some of the non union jobs where you have to do as they say including one job that changed its commission structure to take money off your check, manditory weekend work even though when you were hired you were promised no weekends and if you don't like it then find another job. Yes some union members take advantage of the system but some employers also abuse its employees. As long as their are busineses and business owners there will be a need for unions.

Star_Cards
01-10-2012, 01:40 PM
I disagree with the last two posts. Unions are needed as a form of checks and balances. Yes some companies do take care of their employees but many of them do not. If there were no unions involved the employees can change their rules at a whim and the employees would either have to deal with it or find another job. The employeers have too much leverage as it is and unions counteract some of their unfair leverage.

are they really needed? I get the checks and balance thing and am not pro corporations, but I work for a company that is not union and they pay us very well and have great benefits. I guess my main point is that the vast majority of workers are not union. If unions were so valuable and needed to get workers fair wages I'd think that we'd have a lot more of them rather than less.

Star_Cards
01-10-2012, 01:44 PM
IMO unions have long outlived their purpose. Just a couple of examples:

a friend of mine set up at the national card convention in chicago a few years back. He was told by the convention that he wasn't allowed to plug in his own lap top because "we have a guy that does that." So there was a union guy, whose only job was to plug in stuff for people

2. have multiple friends who are firefighters. Every 3-5 years the firefighters threaten to strike over desired pay increases. 2 of the guys I know have said if it weren't for their union dues, they wouldn't need the raise. The only thing they have seen their union accomplish is take their dues and tell them they need a raise every few years.



i know in some places unions serve a good purpose. But they have ended up protecting the jobs of people who deserve to be fired and getting rich off the very workers they "support"

well said. I worked a convention at the McCormick center in Chicago and once we boxed up out stuff we had to wait for the union guys to come by and load the boxes because they were contractually obligated to be the only people loading boxes. seems like a waste of time and money to me when a job takes zero specialization to do it.

As far as dues, I don't think I'd ever join a union simply because of the due you have to pay into it. Not sure how much they are but seems counterproductive a little bit.

Star_Cards
01-10-2012, 01:49 PM
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have worked at union as well as non union jobs. The difference is night and day. The union jobs were better pay, better benefits and if the job gave you a hard time the union had your back. Compare that to some of the non union jobs where you have to do as they say including one job that changed its commission structure to take money off your check, manditory weekend work even though when you were hired you were promised no weekends and if you don't like it then find another job. Yes some union members take advantage of the system but some employers also abuse its employees. As long as their are busineses and business owners there will be a need for unions.

I guess my point would be shouldn't a company have the right to change if they want to? In the long run if they pay weak wages they won't get good employees and their company will suffer. I get how it's stinks for workers but a company should have the right to change if they want to.

I've been laid off a few times and it's terrible, but if a company can't or doesn't want to pay for that head count I don't think they should be forced to keep it if they can't afford it. I guess there's a fine line between either the company taking advantage of it's workers or the union taking advantage of the company.

mrveggieman
01-10-2012, 02:04 PM
are they really needed? I get the checks and balance thing and am not pro corporations, but I work for a company that is not union and they pay us very well and have great benefits. I guess my main point is that the vast majority of workers are not union. If unions were so valuable and needed to get workers fair wages I'd think that we'd have a lot more of them rather than less.


I have worked in a similiar line of work in different companies in different states in the east coast. The union jobs always paid better and provided better benefits. Now the job that I currently have is non union and they take care of me somewhat but that is the exception and not the rule. As far as all the other jobs the companies did change as the pleased and the did this knowing that it was extremely hard to find work paying a livable wage elsewhere and they always stood over your head with the threat to fire you if you did not do exactly as they said with a cheerful attitude. There was no union to have your back so you were pretty much on your own. I don't mind having a few extra dollars taken out of my check for union dues because the piece of mind is far more valuable.

duane1969
01-10-2012, 03:09 PM
Boy, people really misconstrued that comment. It's just capitalism. If you, as an individual, don't like the service or product that someone provides you, you simply find a new one. I don't see anything wrong with what Romney said.

In this new age of "do what the government tells you" people don't like to hear politicians speaking out in support of free choice and independent thinking. In order to fulfill our nanny state goal the sheep...uh, people must comply with what they are told.

Romney's comments are a direct contradiction of Obamacare requirements which dictate that you must accept your employers health care plan if one is offered. The media will take any possible negative position that they can on this, even if it means blatantly misconstruing what he said.


Agree but I do think that his choice of words were insensitive.

Insensitive to who?

mrveggieman
01-10-2012, 03:44 PM
In this new age of "do what the government tells you" people don't like to hear politicians speaking out in support of free choice and independent thinking. In order to fulfill our nanny state goal the sheep...uh, people must comply with what they are told.

Romney's comments are a direct contradiction of Obamacare requirements which dictate that you must accept your employers health care plan if one is offered. The media will take any possible negative position that they can on this, even if it means blatantly misconstruing what he said.



Insensitive to who?


To all the people who were fired or laid off. Romney dosen't care because he has a job and is financially set for the rest of his life. SMH.

marvelousmarv
01-10-2012, 03:55 PM
amen!!!
IMO unions have long outlived their purpose. Just a couple of examples:

a friend of mine set up at the national card convention in chicago a few years back. He was told by the convention that he wasn't allowed to plug in his own lap top because "we have a guy that does that." So there was a union guy, whose only job was to plug in stuff for people

2. have multiple friends who are firefighters. Every 3-5 years the firefighters threaten to strike over desired pay increases. 2 of the guys I know have said if it weren't for their union dues, they wouldn't need the raise. The only thing they have seen their union accomplish is take their dues and tell them they need a raise every few years.



i know in some places unions serve a good purpose. But they have ended up protecting the jobs of people who deserve to be fired and getting rich off the very workers they "support"

duane1969
01-10-2012, 03:58 PM
To all the people who were fired or laid off. Romney dosen't care because he has a job and is financially set for the rest of his life. SMH.

There is no relation betweeen the two. He is talking about expecting good service or getting service elsewhere. That has absolutely nothing to do with people who have been laid off from a job.

And if people who were fired are offended, tough. They got fired because of their own poor job performance.

Star_Cards
01-10-2012, 04:12 PM
I have worked in a similiar line of work in different companies in different states in the east coast. The union jobs always paid better and provided better benefits. Now the job that I currently have is non union and they take care of me somewhat but that is the exception and not the rule. As far as all the other jobs the companies did change as the pleased and the did this knowing that it was extremely hard to find work paying a livable wage elsewhere and they always stood over your head with the threat to fire you if you did not do exactly as they said with a cheerful attitude. There was no union to have your back so you were pretty much on your own. I don't mind having a few extra dollars taken out of my check for union dues because the piece of mind is far more valuable.

I guess my thing is, union or not, if I work for a company and they are holding something like being fired over my head that's not a company that I want to work for. I get some people can't always just get another job, but I still think a company has the right to offer what wages/benefits they want to offer as long as it's in reason with federal labor laws.

That's not to say that all unions are terrible either. I just think if they were a necessity the majority of the american work force would be unionized and that's just not the case.

by the way, what do your union dues run?

mrveggieman
01-10-2012, 04:40 PM
I guess my thing is, union or not, if I work for a company and they are holding something like being fired over my head that's not a company that I want to work for. I get some people can't always just get another job, but I still think a company has the right to offer what wages/benefits they want to offer as long as it's in reason with federal labor laws.

That's not to say that all unions are terrible either. I just think if they were a necessity the majority of the american work force would be unionized and that's just not the case.

by the way, what do your union dues run?

My current job is non union but my old union job's dues were from a few years ago. I can't remember what they were but I can tell you that it didn't make a noticable difference off my net pay. I want to say about 5 or 10 dollars or so about out of my check but don't get me to lie. :winking0071:

duane1969
01-10-2012, 07:45 PM
I guess my thing is, union or not, if I work for a company and they are holding something like being fired over my head that's not a company that I want to work for. I get some people can't always just get another job, but I still think a company has the right to offer what wages/benefits they want to offer as long as it's in reason with federal labor laws.

That's not to say that all unions are terrible either. I just think if they were a necessity the majority of the american work force would be unionized and that's just not the case.

by the way, what do your union dues run?

I worked a few jobs up in PA that required union membership as a stipulation of being hired. If after you were hired you refused to pay dues then you were fired on the spot. Ended up being a horrible place to work and in retrospect I think there was some backdoor union scheming going on.