0 Nerd-Its - +

RE: Impact of Obama

Comment a comment by Dwayne Sudduth (ldsudduth), published on 22 November 2009
Navigate to the top level to view all replies to the article 3D Mandelbrot Images
Navigate up one level to see this comment's parent.
other nerds have left 7 comments below

I am entitled to the benefits package my employer provides. It’s a part of my compensation for the work I do. When I signed on, the whole package—medical insurance, vacation and holiday schedule, even the more extravagant perqs like a company car—are part of the offer.

This is where I think my position is misunderstood. If the company offers benefits, then certainly it is my right to accept or refuse them. I’m not entitled to them. I’ll use a grocery store as an analogy. Let’s say I’m a fan of Reese’s Puffs cereal, and my store offers them to me for sale. One day, I walk in and find they don’t have them on the shelf, and indeed, the little price card is missing. Upon inquiry, I find that, due to low volume sales, the store has opted not to carry them. It’s all a matter of economics; and if Company X opts not to offer benefits, or to reduce them as a cost saving measure, then that is their right as a business. It’s also my right to sever ties with them over benefits; or the lack thereof. However, most businesses in this climate who are finding themselves in a tight squeeze are reducing benefits.

I’d much rather see a worker’s strike than an anti-abortion protest. Irate workers vandalizing a building is better than religious zealots murdering doctors.

Hyperbole, Scott and you know it. I don’t think there’s been a doctor killed by ‘anti-abortion zealots’ as you call them since the 1990’s here in the USA. I can’t claim when ‘irate workers’ last vandalized a building here either.

Ldsudduth’s view is right in line with the conservative who thinks, “you’re lucky we even pay you animals.”

Scott, that’s not what I’m saying. Compensation means ‘payroll’ and vacation. The rest is merely icing on the cake, if you pardon my food metaphor. I have the good moral sense to take care of the rest on my own. I’ve never used an employer 401K plan; rather opted for the old-school savings accounts and IRA’s (now Roth IRA’s, since it’s Tax Free after retirement).

I do disagree with GM and other companies taking manufacturing out of the country, merely because they could rape the citizenry there by paying them far under what they pay workers in the US; however I also have felt that ‘assembly line’ worker have been vastly overpaid for a long time and that Unions often protect those who abuse their jobs. I’ve observed behavior that I can only classify as criminal have little to no effect on the the employee when caught because the Union protected them; time and time again. Union Contracts mean that everyone doing the same job gets the same pay; regardless of their diligence, skill, or ability. I can be rewarded for a ‘job well done’ where in a Union Shop I cannot. If there is a Union contract, all benefits suddenly become ‘negotiable’; the business owner is prevented from rewarding his employees with things like child care or bonuses when the company is doing well.

As far as Health Insurance goes, I’ve run the gamut of both companies who do and do not offer it, mostly companies where I’ve been a contractor of the 1099 sort is where I have not had health care. I opted out this time because I can find it far cheaper on my own; and I have. Again, it’s a matter of what I’m truly ‘entitled’ to. Neo-socialists like yourself see everything as ‘entitlement’ when it truly isn’t.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
1 Nerd-It - +
RE: Impact of Obama by scottb :: NR7

I’ll use a grocery store as an analogy. Let’s say I’m a fan of Reese’s Puffs cereal, and my store offers them to me for sale. One day, I walk in and find they don’t have them on the shelf, and indeed, the little price card is missing.

But that’s a bad analogy.

Compensation is not just payroll and vacation. The benefits plan is a definite part of it. You make the usual conservative noises about “taking care of it on your own”, but that’s exactly how you do it. When you’re job shopping, you consider the company’s benefit plan because health-care costs are high. If the benefits don’t meet your needs, you’ll have to buy them elsewhere, but if they do, then it effectively increases the value of the actual salary they’re offering.

If the company unilaterally decides to drop benefits, or change them to be paid for by the employee, it’s no different than simply deciding unilaterally to reduce your salary. Now, as a conservative, especially one with the weird anti-labor ideas that so many “libertarian” conservatives have, you might think it’s ok for the company to do that. But, if so, then my statement about “you’re lucky we even pay you” stands.

Hyperbole, Scott and you know it. I don’t think there’s been a doctor killed by ‘anti-abortion zealots’ as you call them since the 1990’s here in the USA.

Not so. Dr George Tiller was murdered by a religious anti-abortion zealot just this past May.

This is the first time they’ve escalated to murder since 1998, but other types of anti-abortion violence is still a fairly regular occurrence. 2001 saw some anthrax threats to abortion clinics, and there are a couple of arson and bombing cases every year.

I can’t claim when ‘irate workers’ last vandalized a building here either.

That was kind of the point. We do have anti-abortion murders, but I’d far rather see worker protests.

Neo-socialists like yourself see everything as ‘entitlement’ when it truly isn’t.

There was a time when I’d have agreed with you on much of that, but I realized I was wrong.

You don’t like the idea of GM taking its manufacturing out of the company because it’s somehow “unfair” to pay the people of those countries so much less than US workers, but those people are more than happy to have the work, because they’re paid rather more than their neighbors.

But you somehow think it’s ok for GM to “rape” its US workers by stopping benefits to which they were promised as part of their employment offer. That’s a rather bizarre contradiction.

Companies don’t have consciences, and their directors are legally required to put the company’s financial best interest at the center of their decision-making—even when that runs counter to their own conscience (so long as it’s not illegal).

Treating people well, seeing that they have food, shelter, and other necessities is not something we can expect from companies, because it’s not in their interests. It costs money and there’s no ROI once they’ve reached a bare subsistence level.

The place to achieve those goals is not the marketplace. We achieve those goals when we act as people, not as businesses. And the primary mechanism by which a society acts as a society is its government.

Conservatives like to think that the motto “of the people, by the people, for the people” just means we have no kings, but it also has an important second meaning, and one that gives the lie to the whole libertarian anti-government whine. The government is the people. It’s not some separate aristocracy that decides on rules for the plebes with a different rule for the elite.

Now, it’s easy to lose control of the government. But the government is still the proper place for that function.

Posted 23 November 2009, Hide, Parent, Reply

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: cell phones in How To Beat Traffic Mathematically
  2. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  3. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  4. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  5. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  6. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  7. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  8. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  9. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  10. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

The Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate?

View Results, All Polls
6 votes, 0 comments