Quote:
Originally Posted by djv8ga
We need "employment benefits" - not "unemployment benefits". You union thugs know that better than anyone.
|
It's not clear what you mean by "employment benefits."
If you mean having security in your job, without the fear that some short-sighted fat cat is going to ruin the company's future by looking for short-term benefits at the cost of a company's future. I'll agree we need that.
If you mean that jobs shouldn't be cut simply to produce a short-term bump in stock prices when the fat cats' stock options become due, I'd vote for those employment benefits.
If you mean eliminating the ability of companies to treat employees as subcontractors in order to avoid paying for health insurance, retirement, unemployment insurance, social security contributions and overtime, that would be one damn fine employment benefit.
If you meant protecting the job security of employees from the whim of some incompetent ass-kissing lower-tier manager who would take advantage of the "at-will employment" abomination, that would be another good one.
If you mean paying a fair wage that reduces the gap between the income earned in productive jobs and that earned in the executive suite, that would be an excellent employment benefit.
Oh yeah, these are the sort of things that happen when employees work under collective bargaining agreements. Those doggone union thugs. What good are they anyway?
Regards,
D-Ray