anyone else's spouse on strike duty for Verizon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

There is a legal right to strike in most cases:

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

The Verizon strike is legal. Firing striking workers is bad for all concerned which is why it is (usually) prohibited.

(When reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, that was because federal employees are prohibited from striking).

I don't see how it's bad. They're not doing their jobs, why should they be protected? So strange.

And yes, I was assaulted for crossing a picket line as a 20 year old intern, so I have personal issues with this whole thing. Unions are violent and protect slackers who don't want to work.

Because if you don't protect the only thing they can do then you don't protect collective action. I mean, we're not about to go wildcat here are we?

So you think it's ok to assault a young woman who wants to work?

Is she working on her reading comprehension?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

There is a legal right to strike in most cases:

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

The Verizon strike is legal. Firing striking workers is bad for all concerned which is why it is (usually) prohibited.

(When reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, that was because federal employees are prohibited from striking).

I don't see how it's bad. They're not doing their jobs, why should they be protected? So strange.

And yes, I was assaulted for crossing a picket line as a 20 year old intern, so I have personal issues with this whole thing. Unions are violent and protect slackers who don't want to work.

Because if you don't protect the only thing they can do then you don't protect collective action. I mean, we're not about to go wildcat here are we?

So you think it's ok to assault a young woman who wants to work?

Is she working on her reading comprehension?

My reading comprehension is fine (although your English is poor). You support unions, and I want to know why you support violent organization. It's a simple question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

There is a legal right to strike in most cases:

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

The Verizon strike is legal. Firing striking workers is bad for all concerned which is why it is (usually) prohibited.

(When reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, that was because federal employees are prohibited from striking).

I don't see how it's bad. They're not doing their jobs, why should they be protected? So strange.

And yes, I was assaulted for crossing a picket line as a 20 year old intern, so I have personal issues with this whole thing. Unions are violent and protect slackers who don't want to work.

Because if you don't protect the only thing they can do then you don't protect collective action. I mean, we're not about to go wildcat here are we?

So you think it's ok to assault a young woman who wants to work?

Is she working on her reading comprehension?

My reading comprehension is fine (although your English is poor). You support unions, and I want to know why you support violent organization. It's a simple question.

Use your fine reading comprehension. We protect strikers from being fired because we want to preserve the right to strike as something that workers can do. If you want to learn more use your comprehension on section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act, which sets out the basic reasoning for collective bargaining as national policy.

[Anonymous]

Oh, c'mon peeps! We can't have unions. That's really inconsistent with the whole lord-and-serf routine our country has evolved back into. God Save the Queen, ya'?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

There is a legal right to strike in most cases:

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

The Verizon strike is legal. Firing striking workers is bad for all concerned which is why it is (usually) prohibited.

(When reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, that was because federal employees are prohibited from striking).

I don't see how it's bad. They're not doing their jobs, why should they be protected? So strange.

And yes, I was assaulted for crossing a picket line as a 20 year old intern, so I have personal issues with this whole thing. Unions are violent and protect slackers who don't want to work.

Because if you don't protect the only thing they can do then you don't protect collective action. I mean, we're not about to go wildcat here are we?

So you think it's ok to assault a young woman who wants to work?

Is she working on her reading comprehension?

My reading comprehension is fine (although your English is poor). You support unions, and I want to know why you support violent organization. It's a simple question.

Use your fine reading comprehension. We protect strikers from being fired because we want to preserve the right to strike as something that workers can do. If you want to learn more use your comprehension on section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act, which sets out the basic reasoning for collective bargaining as national policy.

Great non-answer. You know the real question is why why they're allowed to strike anyway.

They are violent. They are lazy. Completely useless.

[Anonymous]

Can't they just dissolve this Union? Landline business is seriously dwindling - do most people even use landlines anymore? If you are short-sighted enough to invest a large chunk of your career in an industry that has seen a continuous decrease in recent decades ... Whose fault is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

There is a legal right to strike in most cases:

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

The Verizon strike is legal. Firing striking workers is bad for all concerned which is why it is (usually) prohibited.

(When reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, that was because federal employees are prohibited from striking).

I don't see how it's bad. They're not doing their jobs, why should they be protected? So strange.

And yes, I was assaulted for crossing a picket line as a 20 year old intern, so I have personal issues with this whole thing. Unions are violent and protect slackers who don't want to work.

Because if you don't protect the only thing they can do then you don't protect collective action. I mean, we're not about to go wildcat here are we?

So you think it's ok to assault a young woman who wants to work?

Is she working on her reading comprehension?

My reading comprehension is fine (although your English is poor). You support unions, and I want to know why you support violent organization. It's a simple question.

Use your fine reading comprehension. We protect strikers from being fired because we want to preserve the right to strike as something that workers can do. If you want to learn more use your comprehension on section 1 of the National Labor Relations Act, which sets out the basic reasoning for collective bargaining as national policy.

Great non-answer. You know the real question is why why they're allowed to strike anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

That's what I wondered too?

You know what I'm wondering... why can't this monster of a corporation gives their employees an contract they can agree on. Problem solved ..and no one has to get fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^yes, that is exactly what i mean. they are working 12-14 hours a day, 7 days a week. they are also manning 411 call centers and internal call/dispatch centers.

see how easy it is to replace people who are on strike? I hope they say stay on strike and see ya....

unions need to go times have changed the only people benefitting from unions are the union managers.

Or, has been argued, unions have provided a reasonable counterweight to the rapacious capitalist pigs.

[Anonymous]

Blame the CEO with his 15 million a year salary, and the outsourcing of a lot of IT jobs to Mumbai.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just fire the striking employees and hire new ones?

Look, I don't know everything, but in most industries it takes a long time to learn how to do the job. MBA's would refer to this as "start-up costs". They're significant and they grow with experience. I often find myself frustrated with Comcast Reps (my only option in Alexandria, thanks to our city government) because I usually know more about networking than they do. But this is because I have an AB in physics and run networking cables through my home as a fun weekend project. Most people can't or won't do this and it's not a simple or easily-learned skill. The Verizon employees who are striking are professionals who have specific skills. I say this as a person who opposes many unions (taxis) and occupational licenses but respects skilled workers. Don't write these people off. I hope they get satisfaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As someone who worked as a union negotiator for number of years, and dealt with my fair share of strikes and near strikes it is absolutely fascinating to watch it happen somewhere else .

As others have mentioned, Management cannot simply fire these employees - some of you may room remember when Reagan broke the Air traffic controller strike...

What I do you think is likely the case at Verizon given the years of experience I have enough space or two universal truths of unions : truth one is that union management does not have the best interest of their own union at heart. They have re-election in mind and the best path to that is to appear to be strong against management, even when doing so hurts the employees more than not. The second universal truth which many people don't like is that union wages and union benefits are generally significantly better and greater than those that would prevail in the open market. The third universal truth if there is one is that management and union staff simply do not get along - this thread is one such example the term scabs is already come out and we're only on page 2.

This leads to often absurd conversations in union negotiations. To share an example or two , I once approached a large union and offered their employees the opportunity to share hotel rooms when traveling . No obligation to do so but our data showed many did anyway and we wanted to reward that type of behavior as of course it saved the company money. I asked for nothing in return, simply an amendment to the existing rules stating that in addition to a fully paid hotel room the employee had the option at their own discretion to share a hotel room in which case each employee would receive $50 as a cost savings measure. I presented this to the union management who immediately and steadfastly declared it highway robbery and demanded $100 per person. I explained that our average hotel room cost was around $150, so two hotel would cost $300. Offering $200 plus the cost of the hote room would place the total cost at $350 - more than the cost of two seperate hotel rooms. I opened the books. They refused to even present the option to the union. Net result? 20% of the union continues to share rooms, we pay them nothing, the other 80% have no idea this was even ever presented. Who wins?

And the examples like this are numerous - employees demanding free massages after every shift, another union complaining that their healthcare dues which were locked in the early 1970s are now approaching $10 per paycheck for family PPO coverage... In many ways I have found unions to be disconnected from reality and left the industry as a result. You can't change what no one wants to change.

I wanted to read this post but it's too long and likely long winded. Can you give me a TLDR version with highlights?

Unions suck.

Someone in China/India is going to take your job because you're too lazy to do it, and they deserve to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to feel a whole lot of sympathy for scabs and their families.

Yes, so hard to feel for people who are out there working instead of bitching and not doing their job.

They were not getting paid while strike. People died so you do not have to work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day. You moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't the workers who don't like their conditions go get a different/better job like anyone else would have to do? Oh right, because they already have it damn good and likely wouldn't find a better situation.

Unions are outdated and BS.

The IT body shops can use an union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So you think it's ok to assault a young woman who wants to work?

Read Mother Jones story.