Potential mass strike action in the UK

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You can call it whatever you like. It's still money paid by the employer, while the employee is doing no work. 

This is not correct. It’s paid while they are working and saved for future expenditure.

You clearly don’t support the practice of paid sick leave, which is fine, but let’s not misrepresent the mechanism by which it’s offered solely to bolster a weak unpopular argument. 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't happen, I'm just saying that the employer/employee relationship is NOT unequal in favour of employers.

What is the greatest point of leverage an individual has against their company, in your opinion? Where is this great strength you see?

The employee either does what they’re told or they get fired and possibly replaced. It’s strange to me how anyone could say this doesn’t represent an obvious inequality of power and I’d like to better understand your position. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You can call it whatever you like. It's still money paid by the employer, while the employee is doing no work. 

Which is an utterly meaningless point. Salary/wages are typically paid out after the work is completed. Why would it matter the employee is actually working when that happens? The employer owes the employee for a short time. (an interest-free loan) Leave, being part of your earned compensation, is no different.

(xpost with iNow)

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

You can call it whatever you like. It's still money paid by the employer, while the employee is doing no work. 

As others have pointed out, this isn't just your take on the issue, or a perspective you've adopted; it's flat out wrong. I've known employers who think like you, who resent paid vacations and sick leave because they've fooled themselves into thinking the employee is taking advantage of them. Self-important cry babies with resources who resent the folks who work for them, boo-hoo all the way to the bank.

The worst person I ever worked for thought this way. I worked straight commission so he couldn't gripe about the time I took off for vacation, but he used to calculate how much I earned per hour, and pretend that's how he paid me. He did everything he could to make it clear he was graciously allowing me to sell a million dollars worth of the product he manufactured. The company made NOTHING if I didn't sell it, yet this guy had convinced himself that he was paying me if I took more than an hour for lunch. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

The worst person I ever worked for thought this way. I worked straight commission so he couldn't gripe about the time I took off for vacation, but he used to calculate how much I earned per hour, and pretend that's how he paid me. He did everything he could to make it clear he was graciously allowing me to sell a million dollars worth of the product he manufactured. The company made NOTHING if I didn't sell it, yet this guy had convinced himself that he was paying me if I took more than an hour for lunch. 

Reminds me of the “I built this with no help” business-folk. You didn’t happen to work for Craig T Nelson, by chance ?

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Reminds me of the “I built this with no help” business-folk. You didn’t happen to work for Craig T Nelson, by chance ?

He used to say stuff like that all the time!

Me: "For every dollar's worth of product I sell, I make a dime and you make ninety cents."

Him: "You think I get to keep all that?! I have expenses I have to meet."

Me: "It's no different for me. I don't get to keep the whole dime."

Him: "My expenses are far greater."

Me: "Yes, probably about nine to ten times greater, the same as your compensation."

And like mistermack, nothing could persuade the man that his perspective was faulty and skewed in the extreme towards himself as the business owner. There's always something a resource owner will prioritize over employees who turn those resources into profit, and traditionally that's one reason we need strong unions.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

As others have pointed out, this isn't just your take on the issue, or a perspective you've adopted; it's flat out wrong.

LOL. Like your myopic one-sided perspective fits in every employer/employee relationship.

Edited September 4, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[mistermack]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

You can call it whatever you like. It's still money paid by the employer, while the employee is doing no work. 

As others have pointed out, this isn't just your take on the issue, or a perspective you've adopted; it's flat out wrong. I've known employers who think like you, who resent paid vacations and sick leave because they've fooled themselves into thinking the employee is taking advantage of them. Self-important cry babies with resources who resent the folks who work for them, boo-hoo all the way to the bank.

You apparently have no scruples about arguing that black is white. Unless you are talking about people working from their sick beds.

And you have no idea what I resent. I already made it clear I was just replying to John Cuthber's false claim about the balance of inequality of the employer/employee relationship, not my own particular preferences. You're just wasting your time kicking a straw man, by replying to posts out of context.

Edited September 4, 2022 by mistermack
spels

[dimreepr]

On 9/2/2022 at 5:48 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. And I didn't use it in that incorrect context.

A negotiation is essentially a battle of words, and to use an analogy, if you drop a big stick on the battlefield, even if you meant it as a walking stick, don't be surprised that the opponent is using it to beat you about the head.

The context of this thread is very simple, the worker's by and large just want enough money to feed and shelter their family, with enough left over for a splurge on the weekend. The owners/government can afford to meet their need's, but they forget (are blind too) the symbiotic nature of an economy, in favour of the latest superyacht/toy.

Language is the weapon of choice in this battlefield, it's a glorious lever to prize the slightly inconvenienced into righteous soldier's. 

 

[John Cuthber]

On 9/2/2022 at 8:05 PM, mistermack said:

But it's up to you, as an employee, to achieve skills through work and talent. If you don't, you can't expect the Union to get you the same money as people who grafted and studied to get where they are. 

And the union which I'm in has spent the last 10 years or so trying to get the employer to introduce competence based pay.
But they don't like it.

 

On 9/2/2022 at 10:26 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Apparently it's complex enough for you to have yourself confused.

Are you, or are you not, employed by the government?

It depends on your definition of "employed by".
Does it mean the one who sets my pay rise or the one who tells me what work to do.
In the case of most public sector employees, those are not the same.
I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you.

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And the union which I'm in has spent the last 10 years or so trying to get the employer to introduce competence based pay.
But they don't like it.

I wonder why politicians don't like that idea ?

+1

🤣

[mistermack]

45 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And the union which I'm in has spent the last 10 years or so trying to get the employer to introduce competence based pay.
But they don't like it.

In many jobs, it's a recipe for argument and jealosy. But what you seem to constantly ignore is that if you feel undervalued you are free find a better paying job. That's the nature of a market.                                                                                                                                     

[iNow]

On 9/3/2022 at 8:22 AM, iNow said:

What is the greatest point of leverage an individual has against their company, in your opinion? Where is this great strength you see?

The employee either does what they’re told or they get fired and possibly replaced. It’s strange to me how anyone could say this doesn’t represent an obvious inequality of power and I’d like to better understand your position. 

I notice this comment has been ignored. Is it possible Mistermack realizes his position that “there isn’t an inequality of power in the employee/employer relationship” or that the employer doesn’t benefit from that asymmetry is nonsensical?

Nah… of course not. Lol. 

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In many jobs, it's a recipe for argument and jealosy. But what you seem to constantly ignore is that if you feel undervalued you are free find a better paying job. That's the nature of a market.                                                                                                                                     

when did it become your job, to point that out?

[mistermack]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

The employee either does what they’re told or they get fired and possibly replaced. It’s strange to me how anyone could say this doesn’t represent an obvious inequality of power and I’d like to better understand your position. 

What planet are you from? On this planet, when you spend your money, you are entitled to choose what you spend it on. But if you sell something, it's up to you to make the quality and price attractive. That is almost a law of nature, it's so fundamental. 

Employers buy your time, along with your skills. You sell your time, along with your talent. 

If you think sellers should have the right to force a sale price on you, you're going against the normal way the world works.

 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What planet are you from? On this planet, when you spend your money, you are entitled to choose what you spend it on. But if you sell something, it's up to you to make the quality and price attractive. That is almost a law of nature, it's so fundamental. 

Indeed, but what happens when you've got a fist full of money and no-one wants to sell you an apple?

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, mistermack said:

when you spend your money, you are entitled to choose what you spend it on. But if you sell something, it's up to you to make the quality and price attractive. That is almost a law of nature, it's so fundamental. 

No disagreement here. There are small exceptions at the margins, but I have no quarrel with this core point. 
 

46 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you think sellers should have the right to force a sale price on you, you're going against the normal way the world works.

That’s not what I think. How about instead of pretending I think something that I don’t… then expressing your moral outrage toward me for thinking those things I don’t think… how about you try instead addressing my request for clarity.

I’m asking for you to elaborate on your view that there is no additional power weighted toward the employer in the employee/employer relationship.

Individual employees can leave. That’s it, but the employer still retains almost all of the power while that employee is there working for them, and this is why people sometimes group together to achieve improved negotiating leverage. Of course the employer is more powerful.

Suggesting otherwise comes across as either disingenuous or deluded, and I’m asking for your help showing me why your view here (that the employer is NOT, in fact, more powerful than an isolated employee standing lonely and isolated) is something other than one of those two things.

You're not a deluded person, IMO, which means you are more likely being disingenuous here… unless, of course, you can explain your thinking since I obviously may be misunderstanding it?

On 9/3/2022 at 6:54 AM, mistermack said:

I'm just saying that the employer/employee relationship is NOT unequal in favour of employers.

That part is obvious, but why do you think this?

Edited September 4, 2022 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

But what you seem to constantly ignore is that if you feel undervalued you are free find a better paying job. That's the nature of a market. 

In the real world, I'm over 50 but that's slightly beside the point.

You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy.

Put up with what the job currently pays or find another job.

Is there some reason why you exclude the idea of negotiating with the boss for more pay?
Don't you understand that bargaining between two parties is as old as trade.

You seem to focus on the fact that it's a trade without understanding how prices are set.
It's decided by negotiation, just like all other prices.

And that's why it makes sense for me (and my colleagues) to get together negotiate a better deal.

You seem to not understand that it's pretty rare for a business to depend critically one one worker. So sacking one guy because you don't like his taste in music will probably not close the company down.

But that decision is pretty devastating for the one guy.
And that's the reason why the management are the ones with power. Their livelihood does not depend on your whim, but yours does depend on theirs.

On the other hand, any credible manager will understand that, if all of his workforce leave, then he is in trouble.
And that's the reason why collective bargaining restores the balance of power.

There's another aspect to it.You say " well the worker can always try his luck elsewhere".
Don't you see that is equally true of the factory owner?

If he cuts wagers to a point where all his employees walk away, he still has a factory and stock and he's free to employ new staff.
As you say:

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That's the nature of a market.   

but it's not something they do every day, is it?

One company did recently do it.

Even though it's illegal, and they are now being widely boycotted as a consequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%26O_sacking_controversy

P&O is still going. The sacked men and women are probably mainly still on the dole.

Do you still think that's "equal"?
 

[mistermack]

"You're not a deluded person, IMO, which means you are more likely being disingenuous here… unless, of course, you can explain your thinking since I obviously may be misunderstanding it?"

If you want to ignore the normal, worldwide, thousands of years old normal state of affairs, where the buyer can choose what he spends his money on, and whether he wants to pay the asking price, if you want to ignore all that, then you can make a very contrived case for saying that the employer has more power. 

You might say it gives me, the employer, the right to tell you, the employee, what to do at work. That's unequal. But it's stating the bleedin obvious, it's just normal reality. 

Ignore reality by all means, and make your case. I don't agree with it. 

In the real world, money gives people power, in nearly all walks of life. The power to buy things.That is the accepted norm. If you want to change that, abolish money. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by mistermack

[studiot]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

What planet are you from? On this planet, when you spend your money, you are entitled to choose what you spend it on. But if you sell something, it's up to you to make the quality and price attractive. That is almost a law of nature, it's so fundamental. 

Employers buy your time, along with your skills. You sell your time, along with your talent. 

If you think sellers should have the right to force a sale price on you, you're going against the normal way the world works.

 

Have you tried to negotiate a price with a water company lately  ?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Have you tried to negotiate a price with a water company lately  ?

Start a thread on monopolies, if you want to go into that. 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You might say it gives me, the employer, the right to tell you, the employee, what to do at work. That's unequal. But it's stating the bleedin obvious, it's just normal reality. 

First you said, “the employee/employer relationship is NOT unequal in favor of employers.”

Now here you said, “it’s a bleeding obvious part of normal reality that the employer has an unequal power in the relationship.”

As you can see, these two positions… both posted by you… are inconsistent and mutually exclusive of one another. 

Which is YOUR position? It can’t be both. For clarity, my position has consistently been the one you just acknowledged was “bleedin’ obvious.”

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In the real world, money gives people power, in nearly all walks of life. The power to buy things.That is the accepted norm. If you want to change that, abolish money. 

Nobody is exploring the abolition of money. This is a red herring and totally unrelated to our exchange. 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Start a thread on monopolies, if you want to go into that. 

Why should I  ?

This was a direct response to your claim that there are no sellers that do not have the right to force a price on me.

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which is YOUR position?

My position is that the employer has LESS power than the normal buyer/seller situation that pervades all normal walks of life. I think I've already made that clear. If you want to put that aside, your argument is contrived. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

My position is that the employer has LESS power than the normal buyer/seller situation that pervades all normal walks of life.

Thank you, but we’re not talking about buyers and sellers vs the employer. We’re talking about employees vs their employers. Do you still in this context think the employer has LESS power than their employees?

If so, why?

Edited September 4, 2022 by iNow

[studiot]

Just now, iNow said:

Do you still in this context think the employee has LESS power than their employees?

Ahem  ?