That's right, almost $18 per hour to be a clerk at a grocery store in southern cali. In case you haven't heard, there's a strike going on in southern california that started over the past few days.
We've been talking it over here at work, and most of us are of the opinion that the people there are already over paid (I wish I made $18 an hour for menial tasks!), and that the increases in the healthcare paid out of their pockets is minimal (like $5 per week for the employee them self).
My out of pocket costs per week went up more than $5 per week this year, and there's nothing I can do about it (and I earn less than a clerk!).
Personally, I think they're overpaid, and if they don't like the wages, I'm sure that someone else would like to have a job. I'm pretty sure that part of it is because I'm embittered by the sheer incompetance I encounter in almost every call from a Vons store (and they can't get rid of them!!).
Ok, I'm done know. I've gotten that little rant off my chest.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
We are in the second week of a similar strike here in St. Louis, however since none of the major TV executives have to cross picket lines to buy their lobster, it hasn't made national news.
What is interesting here is that the three big grocery stores want to almost completely drop the health care for the employees, and hired staff to cover the strike before a vote on striking was even organized.
It seems that Wal-Mart doesn't have union labor, and that gives them an advantage in costs. The Grocers are not moving so much to lower their union costs, but to kick the unions out all together. They locked the union workers out before they had a chance to strike.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
That's more than double what a clerk at Stop & Shop gets around here, and S & S pays pretty well for a supermarket. Why do I have to live in CT? Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I got $6.75 to be a checker at a grocery store in Provo. Eighteen bucks an hour? That's ridiculous.
But now I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode where the bag boys strike and bring civilization to a screeching halt.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
How much is the profit margin? Can the store afford to pay the workers more? Are the checkers on their feet full-time? Do they have to deal with an unceasing amount of customers? Does the store benefit by having the checkers remaining? Is there a noticable drop off in efficiency when the people only keep the job for a few months? Training time? Why don't you want to be a checker? If you were a checker, could you log in to Hatrack right now? Full-time, on your feet, handling people's money while they eagerly await you to make a mistake. And they expect you to keep the job for longer than a few months?
In short, if Vons wants to create a work environment where the workers want to stay for ten years, the workers have to make enough money to be able to reasonably raise a family with modest dignity. Since the store is open on weekends, that's even less time with your kids. I heard that some 70,000 workers are on strike because the store wanted to reduce the previously negotiated contract. Is that 18 dollar figure the old figure or the new one that is being proposed?
I'm also one of those guys who doesn't mind the athletes or entertainers getting paid a fair percentage of the profits they are generating.
[ October 13, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I make 6.75 and S and S.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
At first I was going to defend the $18/hr based on the fact that CA has a horribly high cost of living. But then I remembered that my brother started at $18/hr for being a Los Angeles County Lifeguard at some of the busiest beaches in the country. The amount of work he has to do to keep himself in shape for the job is far more than carrying someones bags or stocking shelves. And CA checkers are far LESS likely to carry out your groceries than checkers in other parts of the country and baggers in the Midwest carry groceries out in far more inclement weather. My brother is being paid the same for taking care of other peoples LIVES as these people are getting paid for working at a grocery store. AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But then I remembered that my brother started at $18/hr for being a Los Angeles County Lifeguard at some of the busiest beaches in the country.
That's not the starting wage. That's the cap for non-supervisors. And if the supervisors are lifers, too, then that's all a person can be expected to make for a long while.
[ October 13, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
The Unions on strike/locked out here in St.Louis are a joke. They CLAIM to be losing all their health benefits. BAH! Right now they get spouses and dependents covered at no cost to them. They have laughably low co-pays. Over the last 2 years the price of this coverage has more than doubled. Where do these people expect the money to come from? I shop at the union stores on strike, and I hope most other St.Louisans will as well. The grocery worker's cartel has crossed the line.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Robes, do you have a spouse or a dependent? Do we now expect both parents to work full-time for something as essential as healthcare for their kids? I like the idea of stay-at-home parents. And since most jobs require full-time work to qualify for healthcare, you are talking about both parents not only working, but working full-time for their own healthcare, and then shouldering a burden for each one of their kids.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I make 12/hr for social work. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
No, I do not have dependents or a "spouse." This is exactly why I dispise such goodies. This amounts to thousands of dollars in compensation for being married and having kids. NOT because you are a good worker, not because you have EARNED it. And to expect the employer to cover your costs of living, is just without merit.
[sarcasm] Why don't I get a House stipend? I have to pay big bucks for my monthly house payment, you wouldn't want an employee living on the streets would you? [/sarcasm]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Dude, I thought my $10.00/hr test correcting job was a high class sinecure!
Americans have a really warped perception of what a tough work situation is like. I have a Mexican friend who was dumbfounded that I made $6.00 working at a flower shop. I guess it's all relative.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Education jobs are all out of wack. Teachers get squat, but I had a sinecure my senior year of college that worked out, in the last few months, to $400 an hour. Granted, I only worked two hours a month, but still!
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Irami, that's the figure on the old contract. If the union gets the full pay raise, some employees will be making >$20 an hour.
Also, the union is upset that the employees will have to pay $5 for themselves each week (more if you have dependants). I pay $11 each week for my health benefits, and I've got an HMO!
Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong. I'm working in a skilled position (IT), am making average wages, and I have to pay for my health benefits - I'm going on strike!
(Yeah right, lusti would shoot me)
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Over the last 2 years the price of this coverage has more than doubled.
The rate at which healthcare costs are increasing is truly frightening. Employees have been shielded from this knowledge to a very large extent.
I'm afraid that in less than 10 years, no one will be able to afford health insurance.
BTW, striking because you make $20 and hour and have to pay $5 per week for health insurance sounds pretty much crazy to me.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
70% of the grocery store workforce is part-time. $18 an hour/40 hours a week sounds good, but if they are only getting 20 hours a week. . .
Also, while the stores are saying that it would be a $5 increase a week for individuals and $10-15 for families, here is what the union has to say.
quote: The companies are also demanding that employees pay $1,300 a year toward health premiums, as well as bigger deductibles and higher copayments for doctor visits and prescription drugs, said UCFW official Ellen Anreder.
Health care cuts, including elimination of dental, vision and well-baby plans, appear to be the sticking point with many workers, who now get free medical care.
Representatives of Safeway Inc., the parent of Vons and Pavilions, and Kroger Co., parent of Ralphs, along with Albertsons Inc. executives say employers are under pressure to reduce costs to compete with Wal-Mart and other "supercenters."
Also, from a different place. . .
quote:The union wants the companies to maintain health care plans and provide raises of 50 cents an hour the first year and 45 cents an hour the following two years.
quote:The grocery stores are reportedly asking employees to pay almost 50 percent of their health care costs from now on.
Another union member, Hedy Kline, said, "One of the drugs I have to take costs $800 a month. If they want me to pay half of that prescription -- that's $400 a month -- I would be paying $400 for that prescription versus the $6 I currently pay."
quote: The supermarket industry remains one of the most labor- and cost-intensive industries, employing 3.5 million workers in the United States, according to the Food Marketing Institute.
Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that average hourly earnings have risen 37 percent to about $10.35 from $7.56 since 1992.
By contrast, Wal-Mart's staff costs per hour work out to about 70 percent of those of Kroger, the top mainstream U.S. grocery chain, said Husson of Merrill Lynch.
Oh, and Robe, there are only 10,000 out on strike in St. Louis. Of course, only 21,000 are actually on strike in CA, but the other 49,000 have been locked out by their grocery stores. I guess the "competition" isn't nearly as contentious as one would expect.
Workers in WV, OH, and KY just went on strike also. Some info about why they went on strike.
quote: Kroger proposed an 8 percent, or $9 million, increase for workers in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, in what it pays into a health and welfare fund administered by a third party.
An independent actuary determined the fund needs an additional $29 million, Lowthers said.
Also, I think it is a bit of a misrepresentation to say that the cashiers/baggers are making $18 an hour.
quote:Grocery store baggers covered by the UFCW start at $6 per hour while the most experienced workers who oversee departments make about $17.90, Andreder said. The average wage is between $12 and $14 per hour, she said.
Someone asked about earnings.
quote: Kroger earned $542 million on sales of $28.6 billion for its first fiscal half ended Aug. 16, down from $569.3 million on sales of $27.6 billion a year earlier.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I knew I should've stayed in the grocery business. Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
quote:The average wage is between $12 and $14 per hour...
That's still pretty decent money in my book.
Doing a quick search around the major news sites (msnbc, cnn, and a local paper) didn't turn up the information about the health care changes (besides the $5-$15 per week raise). I'm interested to know where you found the information on the drastic prescription plan changes.
I did find this out on Kroger:
quote:The company's offer also included hourly pay raises this year and in 2005, along with lump-sum payments of $300-$500 in 2004 and 2006; and an increase in the number of full-time employees.
Also, from what I've heard from our people at the stores, union reps were threatening to fine union workers who didn't want to go on strike. That's gotta be a fun thing to look forward to...
I don't think I could find myself joining a union. From what I've seen throughout my life, I'm better off on my own in the corporate world.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Also, again, 70% of the people are part-time. Which means that even though they may be getting $12 an hour, it could be for only 20 hours a week. Hardly enough to keep yourself alive, much less dependents.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Oh, and the additional employees, were those not a phased group? Lower wages, bringing in a two-tier system? I thought that was why they were upset about that.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I have worked both menial jobs (in my teens) and in HR and labor law, so I have been on both sides. I am inclined to side with the grocery stores on this one.
Labor laws vary greatly from state to state, including what percentage of a full-time employee’s health benefits the employer is responsible for. Anything paid over the required amount is generosity from the employer. With insurance rates being what they are today, most employers cannot afford to be generous. I can give you a specific example. In Virginia, employers are required to pay 50% of a full-time employee’s health benefits and nothing for dependents or spouses. Let’s say you have a full-time employee who earns $15/hr. That’s $31,200/yr. A mid-level Anthem insurance plan (copays are generally 15%) runs roughly $263/mo ($3,156/yr.) for a reasonably healthy employee under age 45. If the employer pays half ($1,578), then they are essentially paying the employee his salary, plus an additional 5%. And don’t forget that the employer has to cover payroll taxes, workers’ comp, and myriad other expenses associated with employing people full-time. These expenses are significant. If the employer chooses to pay 100% of the insurance, then they are paying a salary, plus an additional 10%. Let’s take it even further. Let’s say that the employer decided to cover 100% of a family plan, which is $1,000/mo. for the employee, spouse, and up to two dependents. The employer now has to pay the salary, plus an additional 38%!
Also, I shop at Kroger. The baggers never carry the bags out to the cars. In fact, they only have baggers about half the time – the other half the checkers bag the groceries. I think that’s great, because the savings are passed on to me, the consumer. I am happy to help the checker bag my groceries and carry them out to my car myself and return my cart if I can save on groceries. Now that they have the automated check-outs, I am happy to do that myself, too. On the other hand, Ukrop’s (the rival chain) has baggers all the time who insist on carrying your bags to the car. Their prices are also significantly higher, so I rarely shop there. Wal-Mart doesn’t use baggers ever.
I think that the real issue here is the rising cost of health insurance, which is truly alarming.
Finally, I’m with Robespierre about the spouse and dependent coverage issue. I think stay-at-home mothers are great, too. I plan to be one as soon as our fertility treatments work or we adopt. In order to ensure that his wife could stay home with his children, Dr.M worked hard in college, then law school, then grad school. He never wanted to be in a position where he would have to take a job that might not cover his family’s health insurance. His skills are specialized and valuable enough that it behooves an employer to cover his family.
Employers are only responsible for providing safe working conditions and fair wages and benefits, as determined to the laws of the state in which they do business. They are not responsible for supporting their employees’ families.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I'm as free-marketeer as you're likely to find at Hatrack, but I don't agree with your last statement. An employee has something an employer wants and vice versa. If the agreement that results is transacted by electronic wire transfer or by old-fashioned bartering, what's the difference? (With the marginal cost of health/dental/vacation/maternity/etc. benefits outpacing monetary wages tenfold, there's not as much difference as you might think.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...stay-at-home mothers are great, too. I plan to be one...."
I'd strongly recommend against it. Anyone who could say 'drop dead' to children for the "crime" of being born to the less well-off...
[ October 14, 2003, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Excuse me, aspectre? Are you saying what I think you're saying? If so, I'd strongly recommend a hard slap in the face.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Cost of living in So-Cal. . . ?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:"...stay-at-home mothers are great, too. I plan to be one...."
I'd strongly recommend against it. Anyone who could say 'drop dead' to children for the "crime" of being born to the less well-off...
That is extremely ugly and uncalled-for.
By the way, my single mother made far less than $18 per hour. I didn’t have health insurance until it was covered by my college scholarship. I started working when I was eight years old, doing odd jobs on neighboring farms. By the time I was ten years old, I was pushing the ice cream cart at the local flea market. I told them that I was 14 and they believed me because I had already reached my full height. I won’t list all the jobs that I had or all of the things that my mother had to do to keep us afloat, but I can assure you that we were a good deal less well-off than the less well-off employees of these stores.
Did I, at any point, state that I don’t want the children of the grocery clerks to have health insurance? Of course I want them to be covered. However, it is getting increasingly prohibitive for employers to cover any costs but the ones that the law says that they must. I agree that a solution has to be found, but we cannot expect the employers to keep paying and stay in business. It won’t help those children if their parents’ employers go out of business.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bring on organized, sensible, universal health care.
My family owns a small business, and health care costs are far and away the most major concern with hiring anyone. They keep employees because they treat them well, hire friends of employees, and share the wealth and the burdens of the shop, but if Utah wasn't a Right to Work state, they probably couldn't stay in business.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Kroger earned $542 million on sales of $28.6 billion for its first fiscal half ended Aug. 16, down from $569.3 million on sales of $27.6 billion a year earlier.
While $542 million is a lot of money, it is only a profit of less than 2%!
Why would a company go to all this trouble for a 2% return? I mean, you could just toss all of your money in a CD at a bank for that. Sounds like grocery is not a good gig to have right now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's always like that. Profit margins at grocery stores are very, very low.
[ October 14, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I think there is a major problem with most people's perception of this issue. From my discussions wwith friends, it seems that most people think the company pays your health benefits, and that has no effect on your wages. When the cost of health benefits is actually figured into your wages.
This is similar to the payroll tax. Since the employee never sees it, they usually don't care about it, or think it effects them. However, if the company didn't have to pay any health benefits or payroll tax, you can bet your salary/wage would be higher. Its easy for people to want the company to pay for all this stuff, but when one looks at this situation with the proper perspective, these are all just coming out of your check.
Look at the war on poverty, the great society programs, etc. These are government attempts to spend the public's money in a better way. These programs are disgusting failures. Sure, some people are helped by them, but the overall effect is to train our poor not to work.
Nationalized healthcare would be a similar fiasco. The more the government removes the system from the free market, the closer it is to collapse. If drug companies are prevented from making profits on their drugs, they will simply stop developing them. If hospitals are forced to cover too many people who can't pay, they will go under. Nationalizing healthcare would destroy it. The US does have the most advanced Health industry in all the world. This is why people from all over ther world come here to be treated. They do not go to France, England, or Canada. Government planned economies don't work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rob, you should hear Claudia Therese on this subject.
Considering hospitals are already required to treat anyone who comes into their emergency room, regardless of ability to pay, we already have subsidized health care for the poor. We are just doing it very, very inefficiently.
I don't know as much as I'd like about the subject, but I don't believe the horror scenarios, considering that the care that gets dropped is not the emergencies, but the preventive stuff that would lower the incidence of emergencies.
[ October 14, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:By the way, my single mother made far less than $18 per hour. I didn’t have health insurance until it was covered by my college scholarship. I started working when I was eight years old, doing odd jobs on neighboring farms. By the time I was ten years old, I was pushing the ice cream cart at the local flea market. I told them that I was 14 and they believed me because I had already reached my full height. I won’t list all the jobs that I had or all of the things that my mother had to do to keep us afloat, but I can assure you that we were a good deal less well-off than the less well-off employees of these stores.
Mrs.M, are you going to adjust for cost-of-living increases or home prices in your area? Even if you do adjust for those costs, are you actually supposing that children ought not have healthcare? Maybe we have different ideas about what is and is not a character building experience, but I worked too many jobs for too long when I would have been much better off at home studying.
I know the profit margin is low at a grocery store, but everybody eats. Everyone, and the restaurants that don't have a deal with the wholesaler, and you'd be surprised at how many of them don't, end up buying their food from the grocery store. That's why there is a premium on fast checkers, because the money is made on volume.
But just because the margin per-item is low, doesn't mean that there isn't an incredible amount of money to be made at a grocery store, and no, I don't think that the grocery stores are honestly passing the saving on to the customer.
And to be honest, don't you like knowing that the person who stands in that booth for eight hours a day, hustling, trying to clear as many goods as possible through and type in as many produce codes as possible has enough money to raise his/her family. I actually think it makes the food taste better. And I hate walking into a grocery store and seeing that every checker has a wrist brace.
I'm one of those guys who doesn't believe that being a checker at a busy grocery store is one of those jobs that anyone can handle. Maybe it's because I've seen so many of them lose it. Slacker, you mentioned above about the incompetence of too many checkers. If the job is so menial, what separates the competent ones from the incompetent ones?
Every 520 hours, these guys get a raise, and eventually, they top out at eighteen dollars an hour. Working in a grocery store can be a career, and as careers go, I can think of a whole lot less virtuous ones.
If the money's there, pay the workers what they deserve.
________________
If Walmart is the problem, the answer isn't to shut down Unions. Organize Walmart.
_________________
quote:My family owns a small business, and health care costs are far and away the most major concern with hiring anyone. They keep employees because they treat them well, hire friends of employees, and share the wealth and the burdens of the shop, but if Utah wasn't a Right to Work state, they probably couldn't stay in business.
All a Union means is that the workers sit down collectively and negotiate a contract. If the workers at your family's store were treated as well as you described, it won't be an issue. The employers who have the most to lose are the employers who don't treat their workers at a level commensurate with their need or necessity.
btw, I grimace every time I read, "hire friends of employees." I know it's how it works. And it's how a lot of white people get good jobs, and how a lot of black people get poor jobs. And there is very little intrinsically wrong with it. There are worse criteria. It's just one of those things I don't like reading because I don't have a solution complex enough to address the problem.
[ October 14, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: are you actually supposing that children ought not have healthcare?
Of course this is not what is being said. You seem to think that there would be no health care if the company didn't provide it. This is a false idea. Employee's pay for there own health care, as I said before, whether they see it or not. The money that goes to paying the health insurer comes out of the employee's salery/wage. That is part of the cost of employment.
quote: And to be honest, don't you like knowing that the person who stands in that booth for eight hours a day, hustling, trying to clear as many goods as possible through and type in as many produce codes as possible has enough money to raise his/her family.
This sounds all well and good in an abstract way. However, when it comes down to making laws to enact this, you take people's freedom, and put it in the trash. You want to take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who have not.
Health care is NOT a right, nor should it be. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to achieve it. If you fail, it is your own responsibility.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This sounds all well and good in an abstract way. However, when it comes down to making laws to enact this, you take people's freedom, and put it in the trash. You want to take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who have not.
Whose freedom am I putting in the trash? The worker's have the right to organize, and in the UFCW, you need a super-majority (2/3rds) vote in order to strike. This seems like a very democratic process. Though, I do wish it could have been handled in the negotiating room.
quote: BTW, striking because you make $20 and hour and have to pay $5 per week for health insurance sounds pretty much crazy to me.
We don't know that that is the strict trade-off. Did the store agree to the twenty dollars an hour figure? And remember, that 20 only comes to the workers at the highest seniority. We are talking about 13 dollars an hour for most people, and for a reduced plan.
[ October 14, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Mrs.M, are you going to adjust for cost-of-living increases or home prices in your area? Even if you do adjust for those costs, are you actually supposing that children ought not have healthcare? Maybe we have different ideas about what is and is not a character building experience, but I worked too many jobs for too long when I would have been much better off at home studying.
Of course I don’t think that children ought not to have healthcare. My point was that I understand, better than most, what it’s like to be the child of someone who makes minimum wage and I understand that that’s not enough to get by. I don’t think that any child should ever grow up the way that I did – it’s awful to be that poor. No ten-year-old should have to push a heavy ice-cream cart around a hot flea market all day to be able to eat. I would never, ever raise a child that way and I worked very, very hard to make sure that I wouldn’t have to. I think that it’s irresponsible to have children that you cannot support.
Also, home prices?!? Do you really think that employers should make sure that all of their full-time employees can own houses? I am not asking that in an ugly, sarcastic way, it’s just that I don’t understand why you would think that.
quote:All a Union means is that the workers sit down and negotiate a contract. If the workers at your family's store are treated as well as you describe, it wouldn't be an issue. The people who have the most to lose are the employers who don't treat their workers at a level commensurate with their need or necessity.
Okay. I strongly disagree. I have had a lot of direct experience with unions. I have sat in on collective bargaining sessions and worked on countless contracts. First, the workers don’t sit down, the union leaders do. Union leaders are generally senior employees who are going to negotiate the contract that is best for them personally. I have seen just as much corruption in unions (particularly teamsters) as I have in corporations, if not more. I think it’s naive to think that unions are only interested in getting fair wages and working conditions for their employees.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Whose freedom am I putting in the trash? The worker's have the right to organize, and in the UFCW, you need a super-majority (2/3rds) vote in order to strike. This seems like a very democratic process.
I am referring to the health care question. You want nationalized healthcare. This involves taking my money, and giving it to someone else. This is putting my freedom in the trash. I am a healthy 24 year old male. Maybe I don't feel like I need to buy any healthcare insurance. But you damn well better believe that I still pay medicare tax, and under nationalized HC I would be paying even more. All so that people who did not earn that money, can have health care.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Also, to lighten things up a bit:
quote:Homer: Wait -- I changed my mind. Stack it in the order I'll eat it driving home.
Bag Boy 1: Sir, please! I already bagged it by color, and in order of each item's discovery by man.
Homer: Customer's always right; that's what everybody likes about us. Now, mush! [claps hands twice]
Agnes: You tell him, Jumbo! [to her lane's bag boy] And you, start over! I want everything in one bag.
Bag Boy 2: Yes, ma'am.
Agnes: But I don't want the bag to be heavy.
Bag Boy 2: I don't think that's possible.
Agnes: What are you, the Possible Police? Just do it.
Moe: [to his lane's bag boy] Hey, hey, watch what you're doing there, sack monkey. You're bruising my DuraLog.
Homer: [poking Bag Boy 1 with a stick] Hurry up! I can't stand here jabbing you all day.
Bag Boy 1: Ow! Stop. Bag boys have feelings, too, you know.
Homer: No, you don't.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Each Local is different. The Unions I've been a part of has workers at the table. Saying that Unions are corrupt because of a couple of corrupt officials is the same as saying that all politics is bad because of corrupt politicians. The key difference between workers and the employers is that the Union isn't for profit. It's to safeguard the welfare of the employees, but it's existence isn't soley to milk the employer for everything they have.
My Union starts contract negotiations at the first of the month, and I'm one of the negotiators. It's nice to know that I'm going to only negotiate a contract that is best for me personally. See, the people who placed their faith in me thought they were getting a guy who is going to honestly try to broker a fair contract. I'm there because I'm unabashedly moral, and the employees want a fair deal. Wait until they find out that I screwed them. That they got hosed, and that I'm going to roger them but good.
quote:Do you really think that employers should make sure that all of their full-time employees can own houses? I am not asking that in an ugly, sarcastic way, it’s just that I don’t understand why you would think that.
If you are running a profitable business, and you expect your employees to stay for ten years, then yes. I believe that steady, full-time workers in successful businesses should be able to buy small houses. It's part of the American dream. You know, the same dream that allowed the employers to rise to their position in the first place.
Robes
quote:I am a healthy 24 year old male. Maybe I don't feel like I need to buy any healthcare insurance.
You are an idiot, numbered with those that think that they should be able to drive uninsured while drunk. There is a difference between freedom and license, and you are arging that I am curbing your license? The Rabbit linked to an article discussing the difference on another thread. Until then, don't trip on anything.
I'm one of those guys who thinks that women should have free breast cancer screenings and thinks that there is something fundamentally wrong with paying for a pap smear. You don't think that you should have to subsidize that, but I do. Also don't think that people should have to live in fear of crossing the street or falling off of their bicycle, or be penalized for aging.
Btw, I got a letter from a friend from Germany. He said that finally getting all of this dental work done there was worth the plane ticket.
[ October 14, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: All a Union means is that the workers sit down collectively and negotiate a contract. If the workers at your family's store were treated as well as you described, it won't be an issue.
Union corruption is legendary. As was previously stated, the union leaders are the ones who get a fair say, not the employees. The unions operate like out of control cartels. Disallowing someone to work because they won't join your political organization(lets not fool ourselves, this is what unions are) is the work of thugs.
On the other hand, I support the freedom to create these unions. I think that if they are oppressive enough, the businesses that deal with unions will be destroyed by market forces. Which is happening in all too many fields. Unions block modernization and efficiency by demanding that no employee, once hired, should be fired. The steel industry and the auto-manufacturers know all about this. It took the near destruction of the US automobile market before unions would "allow" suffucient modernization to compete with Japan and Europe.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You are an idiot,
And your a communist!
See how much fun it is to label people!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:But you damn well better believe that I still pay medicare tax, and under nationalized HC I would be paying even more.
You realize, right, that the citizens of countries with nationalized health care systems pay less per person to subsidize all persons than US citizens do to subsidize only part* of the population?
*Veterans Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Health Departments, State Labs, etc.
[ October 14, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Unions block modernization and efficiency by demanding that no employee, once hired, should be fired.
No, the Unions negotiate a contract which doesn't enable the employers to fire an employee at whimsy. It's the difference between progressive discipline and "at-will" employment. The difference manifests itself in the calm sleep of knowing that your employer can't fire you for not putting out.
You are an idiot for confusing freedom and license, and I'm a communist for seeing the virtues of negotiating a contract. You are right, though, I called you the wrong name. Negligent and irresponsible are more appropriate. It's funny, but I like the process. You sit down and negotiate a contract. I actually think that there is something uniquely American about it. People did it a few hundred years ago and came up with the United States Constitution.
[ October 14, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: The difference manifests itself in the calm sleep of knowing that your employer can't fire you for not putting out.
I'm not sure exactly what "putting out" you mean. IF you mean not "putting out" sexually than that is a whole 'nother ball of wax for a different legal discussion.
If you mean putting out as being productive, I sure as hell think that a company should be able to fire unproductive employees. There are about two dozen I could name in my company that probably should be fired. But even though our employment is "at will" they can't fire the unproductive old fogeys because of age discrimination lawsuits. (They don't seem to be interested in firing the unproductive younger employees either.) Even though they aren't performing their jobs competently anymore.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
And by firing on the old guys I actually mean a handshake and a golden parachute into early retirement becuase they have their pensions basically full.
But the company did this with some of the worst offenders and lost the lawsuit.
AJ
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You realize, right, that the citizens of countries with nationalized health care systems pay less per person to subsidize all persons than US citizens do to subsidize only part* of the population?
Maybe they pay less as a dollar amount, but not as a percentage. Income taxes in most western european contries are huge. Similar to what they used to be like here, when the top bracket had to pay 70%!
quote: Employee, single, with annual income of Euro 50 000,- (gross). Net income after taxes (income tax, tax for solidarity with East Germany, church (!) tax) and "social deductions" for health insurance, unemployment insurance and pension: Euro 26 400,-. Wife of a high income employee. Her income (gross) for a part time job is Euro 1250,- monthly. After taxes and "social deductions", her net income is Euro 341,-.
A net wage increase of 50 Euro for an average employee adds up to 150 Euro for the employer, because of a highly progressive income tax system and because of social deductions.
On average, the hourly cost of handicraft work in Germany is 51,- Euro. After taxes, social deductions and company costs the net wage per hour is 8,32 Euro.
quote: Medicare, Medicaid
If you are holding these programs up as examples of how a national system should be run, I laugh. These broken programs are doomed to failure as they are currently written.
quote: The difference manifests itself in the calm sleep of knowing that your employer can't fire you for not putting out.
BannaOJ covered this well.
quote: You are an idiot for confusing freedom and license, and I'm a communist for seeing the virtues of negotiating a contract
You are a commie for wanting to take my money and give it to those who are not me! This whole idea that we are all the same and we should insure equal outcome in every facet of life, comes from communism. The state would own the industry of health care if you had your way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Maybe they pay less as a dollar amount, but not as a percentage. Income taxes in most western european contries are huge. Similar to what they used to be like here, when the top bracket had to pay 70%!
Well, no. The portion of the income tax that goes to subsidize healthcare is less. On top of which, the whole system is cheaper per person in comparative dollar terms.
quote: Re: Medicare, Medicaid
If you are holding these programs up as examples of how a national system should be run, I laugh. These broken programs are doomed to failure as they are currently written.
That would be why I indicated that they are inefficient, as opposed to, say, the nationalized healthcare plan provided by Canada.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote: The difference manifests itself in the calm sleep of knowing that your employer can't fire you for not putting out.
That has nothing to do with unions – sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal.
quote: Each Local is different. The Unions I've been a part of has workers at the table.
That is rare. The teamsters, one of the largest and most powerful unions in this country, do not have workers at the table. I have sat at the table for weeks while they argued about things like seniority determination. Meanwhile, the employer was paying my law firm thousands and thousands of dollars and the teamsters’ fellow (and less senior) employees were sitting at home not working.
quote: Saying that Unions are corrupt because of a couple of corrupt officials is the same as saying that all politics is bad because of corrupt politicians.
It goes way, way beyond a couple. Look, I’m not saying that all union officials are corrupt. However, you seem to be saying that almost none are.
As to mandatory healthcare impairing freedoms, let me offer another example. I am a non-smoker. Why should I have to pay for the healthcare costs of smokers, which are significantly higher than those of non-smokers? Don’t I deserve the right to demand that smokers cease smoking? Doesn’t this impair their freedom?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: That would be why I indicated that they are inefficient, as opposed to, say, the nationalized healthcare plan provided by Canada.
SO poisoning the entire industry would be better? I don't see how you can make this assumption.
I oppose the idea of nationalized health care on a number of levels. The most important is the most basic level. I think it is morally wrong to redistribute wealth according to need. You would have us take from those who earn, and give to those who do not. You hold up Canada as a beacon of success, but Canada is not the US. Canada has a very different population than the US. Also, Canada does not have the best health care system in the world. The US does. Why where those eqyptian siamese twins sent to the US to be separated and not Canada?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Irami can you clarify your "putting out" statment? Did you mean on-the-job productivity or sexual activity?
I just want to know which you were talking about at the time.
AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:SO poisoning the entire industry would be better? I don't see how you can make this assumption.
I don't understand why you believe that would be poisoning the entire industry. If we were to take better care of people and cost you less money, wouldn't that be an improvement? Sure, it wouldn't go as far as you like, but it would be a step in the right direction in your book. Correct?
quote:I oppose the idea of nationalized health care on a number of levels. The most important is the most basic level. I think it is morally wrong to redistribute wealth according to need. You would have us take from those who earn, and give to those who do not.
Well, no. I'd like to take less from those who earn. I still don't understand why this would be a bad thing for you.
quote:Also, Canada does not have the best health care system in the world. The US does.
What's your rationale for this claim? (I'm truly interested, not just trolling.)
quote:Why where those eqyptian siamese twins sent to the US to be separated and not Canada?
Probably because the charitable organization who funded the trip and operation were based at (and affiliated with) the Children's Medical Center in Dallas. I imagine if they'd been affiliated with the UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital, then they would have gone there, or to Singapore General Hospital if the charity were based there.
Besides, it seems like there would be far better things to base the successfulness of a healthcare system on than how it can deal with a 1 in 2 million birth defect. Such things as morbidity and mortality rates for the most common diseases and causes of death might be a better start.
[ October 14, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I will clarify. When I say the best, I mean the most advanced.
quote: Well, no. I'd like to take less from those who earn. I still don't understand why this would be a bad thing for you.
Taking less from those who earn is a good thing. But you cannot fund a nationalized health care system and have our taxes where they are now. How will you pay for this? The existing systems are obviously not working. You say it is because they are incomplete. I say it is because the idea behind them is fundamentally flawed. Why not draw the conclusion that: instead of expanding them to cover everyone, we should eliminate them and let the free market operate?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I will clarify. When I say the best, I mean the most advanced.
"Most advanced" on what grounds? (Again, I promise it's a serious question.) Do you mean "most ground-breaking," such as developing the first successful cure for diabetes, negating the need for insulin? Or maybe, funding the research that initially came up with injectable insulin? Or both?
quote:But you cannot fund a nationalized health care system and have our taxes where they are now. How will you pay for this?
Presumably, I'd study those systems which cost less in subsidy and have better outcomes than ours. This seems simple to me, but it must be because we are working with different information.
quote:The existing systems are obviously not working. You say it is because they are incomplete. I say it is because the idea behind them is fundamentally flawed. Why not draw the conclusion that: instead of expanding them to cover everyone, we should eliminate them and let the free market operate?
Well, I think we probably have different end goals in this. That's okay, and I don't expect to change your mind anytime soon. You're not likely to change mine, either. But wouldn't a lovely compromise be to charge less and get more? We could agree on that step, correct?
[ October 14, 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Even if you could provide nation-wide healthcare for less money that I pay now, I would oppose it. Any amount more than zero is too much. I will handle my own health care, just as I expect everyone else to handle theirs.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
CT, do doctors get paid less in Canada than their US counterparts?
<Beware to those of you arguing with CT, this is something that I wouldn't do, other than asking questions like I just did for info, since she has both an MD and PhD in medical ethics and knows her stuff!>
AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Even if you could provide nation-wide healthcare for less money that I pay now, I would oppose it. Any amount more than zero is too much. I will handle my own health care, just as I expect everyone else to handle theirs
So, if a cheaper viable system were proposed, you'd reject it on the grounds that if you can't pay nothing, you'd rather not pay less?
I don't understand.
If you can't have it the way you want, then at least you'll pay more than you have to?
[ October 14, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:CT, do doctors get paid less in Canada than their US counterparts?
As direct salary, yes. On the other hand, they spend no time at all trying to justify coverage of procedures. The last compiled data is from years ago, and even then US physicians reported spending an estimate of 45% of their time on paperwork. It's only gotten worse.
The opportunity to spend more time with patients (and with one's own friends and family), as well as the decrease in stress from not having to argue with bureaucracy might well be worth it. Not to mention the deep satisfaction of providing better care.
Some physicians where I work are lobbying to pay a fee of $15,000-$20,000 a year to get out of the call schedule, and that only represents 1 night out of 25.
quote:Beware to those of you arguing with CT
AJ, you are too generous in your assessment of me. It's an area I'm always trying to learn more about, and you are welcomed to toss out new and challenging ideas. Those are cool.
[ October 14, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Robspeirre? Have you had any major medical expenses ever? Until this year I was a relatively healthy 24 year old. Little did I know that my gall bladder had been accumulating gallstones throughout my life to suddenly cause me acute pain and need to be removed.
Yes YOU might never, ever need to see a doctor in your entire life, and be healthy as an ox. But what if you get married and your wife has a gall bladder problem, or your child has appendicitis?
I think you are being very introverted and selfish in your outlook on the topic.
I also want to say that the checkers and baggers at my local Ralphs, Vons, Pavillions, and Albertsons are all very courteous and helpful. And with the exception of the occasional clueless bagger, very competent.
I support the strike, and am doing my best not to cross picket lines. Gonna need to buy milk soon, though.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Irami, I would clarify my statement on the incompetant employees from Vons, but as I'm on the phone with one, I'll wait till later (I wouldn't want my emotions to cloud my post).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
OMG, I would lose anywhere between 6,000 to 16,000 dollars per year of disposable income if I moved back to Southern CA. The worst I checked was San Diego where I'd lose 16K. In L.A. I'd only lose 10k. The 6K figure was from Ventura, CA where I actually grew up.
At those numbers there is no way it is worth it, much as I miss it!
AJ
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
You are missing the point Banna. Of course I have had medical expenses. I paid for them out of my own pocket with money I earned.
quote: So, if a cheaper viable system were proposed, you'd reject it on the grounds that if you can't pay nothing, you'd rather not pay less?
No, you create a false dilema. I do not want to be coerced to pay for other people's healthcare. ANY system that causes me to pay other people's bills is a bad system.
quote: Beware to those of you arguing with CT
There is no one I would rather argue with. However, I would point out that being an MD does not give someone a special perspective on morality. It certainly gives said person a qualified opinion on the practice of medicine. However, administrating a health care plan and actually performing the health care are two different situations. You would not hear me argue with CT about what is the best way to treat someone's injury. However, I will argue about how to pay for that treatment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Clarification:
The Edmonton Protocol is being used at centers across the world, including the US. The preliminary data are astounding.
Injectable insulin was first produced by Fred Banting in 1920. Of course, there have been more recent developments, too. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Robspierre, let me get this straight. You do not believe in health insurance? You pay all medical bills out of pocket?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Do you know how much gall bladder surgery costs? Gall bladder surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures in the U.S.
My hospital bill was ~$17,000. How long would it take you to pay that off?
AJ
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'll throw in support of the individuals, despite the fact that I think unions are somewhat a necessary evil. If they didn't exist, but companies acted as though they did, then the companies could pay more to the employees and still improve the profit margin. But any company that goes public has to answer to shareholders, who want profit as high as possible (in almost every case), and just about any analyst will tell you that the number one controllable cost in most any industry is labor. Once labor is looked at as a cost rather than as an investment, it usually gets slashed.
I did as much shopping as I could before the strike was set to begin, and I hope the strike will be over before I need anything. If it doesn't end by then, I honestly haven't yet decided what I'll do. I'm a regular Vons shopper, and plan to continue to be one. I cannot recall a time when I haven't had a pleasant experience checking out at my local store. If the lines are too long (that is, more than two people waiting, which has probably happened once in the past few years), they open another checkstand. And I am also unable to remember any time when I wasn't offered assistance to my car (aside from when I purchased one or two items), even though I've never taken advantage of such assistance. I've gone out of my way to tell all the employees, including the managers, at various times how much I appreciate the service there.
They're not all the same. I know that. We are lucky enough to live next to a great one.
My real beef is that the strike involves three different major companies. In my mind, the union has formed a monopoly, which shouldn't be allowed, but because it's the workers rather than the companies, it's not looked at in that way legally, or at least doesn't appear to be. The ironic thing in my book is that the ostensible reason the companies need to cut costs is to compete with big-box stores like WalMart. I wouldn't even consider shopping for groceries there, if only because of the lack of service. The perception may be there (greeted at the door), but the actual help is not to be found in my experience. Again, this undoubtedly varies store by store. And though I don't want to shop for that particular competitor, the strike might drive me there.
--Pop
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:
quote: So, if a cheaper viable system were proposed, you'd reject it on the grounds that if you can't pay nothing, you'd rather not pay less?
No, you create a false dilema. I do not want to be coerced to pay for other people's healthcare. ANY system that causes me to pay other people's bills is a bad system.
I understand that. I fail to understand why a system that causes you to pay less is not better.
quote:There is no one I would rather argue with.
Awesome! *high-five We'll have some interesting discussions. Welcome to Hatrack, by the way. I didn't realize that you were new -- you've been posting quite a bit, and all the names sort of run together sometimes.
quote:However, I would point out that being an MD does not give someone a special perspective on morality.
Agreed. It's one of the reasons that I don't post that information in my profile, as the degree is irrelevant to most discussions.
quote:However, administrating a health care plan and actually performing the health care are two different situations.
I know. That's why I'm always trying to swing more training and practical experience in the former. Believe it or not, Hatrack is an excellent place to hone one's understanding of such issues.
Robespierre, I'm off for the day, but I look forward to continuing the discussion. Enjoy your night!
[ October 14, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:However, I would point out that being an MD does not give someone a special perspective on morality.
No but a PhD in MEDICAL ETHICS might. And she has both, which makes her extremely qualified or did you miss that bit of info the first time around?
I'm also very interested interested in finding out how you would have accumulated $17,000 in savings above and beyond a basic car purchase (of for the sake of argument lets say $6K) by the age of 24 while going to and paying for college.
AJ Edit: Incidentally, CT the PhD in medical ethics impresses me a lot more than the MD. I know people who are in degree programs for both and while the MD may be more physically taxing, that particular PhD seems to me to be much more mentally taxing. But I won't mention it again per your request.
[ October 14, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: We'll have some interesting discussions. Welcome to Hatrack, by the way.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I need someone with good #'s and expirience to discuss these things with.
quote: Robspierre, let me get this straight. You do not believe in health insurance? You pay all medical bills out of pocket?
No, you couldn't be more wrong. I have no problem with health insurance. I have a decent policy myself. I just think everyone should have to pay for their own insurance!
Why don't we have national auto-insurance? Because not everyone has a car. Also, those who own $100,000 cars would pay the same as those who own $500 cars. Would this be fair? This is the type of situation we would be in if we had national health insurance.
Why does your health care supercede my right to persue happiness?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I meant sexual activity.
I know that sexual harassment is against the law, but without a union, the victim may not have a lawyer, the time, or the energy to find out her rights. She will just put up with it, and in the end, doesn't have faith in the company to do right. While the managment can make all of the phone calls necessary and hire all of the people necessary on the clock to quiet the problem or make the problem go away.
You can't just say it's illegal as a means of saying the problem doesn't exist. People try the same with racial discrimination. The problem is that the people on the ugly side of the issue don't have the means and the resources to know their rights, and even if they do know their rights, the victims don't have the means and the time to enforce them.
Over the last few months of our organizing campaign, the owners of the store I work for (250 employees) pled guilty to four charges in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, including threatening employees with termination and attempting to bribe them with pay increases. Their penalty was having to post that they violated the act. They posted it in eight-point font on a bulletin board for three days. And then continued to break the charges, feigning ignorance.
You are right, Mrs. M. the companies pay your firm millions of dollars while the victim, without a Union, has all of the change in her pocket and the time she is not at work to find help.
With the Union, you get a clear, legally binding contract, and a lawyer at your call when you need an advocate or an interpreter. You get an unambiguous conduct policy which is a boon for both the workers and the employers, because more than half of these problems stem from the fact that while the employer may be an excellent widget salesman and producer, doesn't know how to manage employees. Or as Moose said it, "Once labor is looked at as a cost rather than as an investment, it usually gets slashed."
[ October 14, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rob:
What do you think insurance is but a method of spreading the cost of health care around? If you want to be 100% solely responsible for your own health care, then you can't be part of an insurance plan where other people take on the risk of catastrophe for you.
[ October 14, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
AJ, no worries. I didn't mean it that way. (And I appreciate your kind thoughts. I could freakin' never make it through basic engineering classes. Thank goodness we have people who do. )
I think it's one of OSC's basic tenets that degrees don't matter in forum discussion -- only the strength and clarity of one's argument. I have this fond hope of being so strong and clear someday, on something, that I never need to mention the degrees. They're just hoops, anyway.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe Robespierre might advocate private insurance -- in which case you still pay for other people's health care costs, that's (one way) health insurance companies make money.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What do you think insurance is but a method of spreading the cost of health care around? If you want to be 100% solely responsible for your own health care, then you can't be part of an insurance plan where other people take on the risk of catastrophe for you.
You know, I come here to get AWAY from studying for my actuary exam. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I find it sweetly naieve Irami, that you don't think sexual harrasment goes on within the Unions themselves. Please tell me how many heads of Unions are female.
Also, do you know the amount of abuse and threatening non-union workers take from union workers? This should be just as illegal as sexual harrasment, but it isn't. Do you know that in many jobs (especially here in Illinois) your "Union dues" are automatically deducted from your paycheck regardless of whether you wanted to be part of a Union or not? This deduction happens to my boyfriend every paycheck. He has no choice over the matter at all.
How is this holding someone over a barrel to take their money any worse than sexual harrasment. They are both forms of coercion, but one is given tacit approval while the other isn't just because the word SEX is mentioned.
AJ
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: What do you think insurance is but a method of spreading the cost of health care around? If you want to be 100% solely responsible for your own health care, then you can't be part of an insurance plan where other people take on the risk of catastrophe for you.
Insurance does NOT spread the risk at all. I will pay in MUCH more over my lifetime than I will ever get out of it. How do you think insurance companies make so much money? They take your money, then make you dance upsidedown on a table to get it when you need it. They are not in the business of spreading the risk.
quote: I think it's one of OSC's basic tenets that degrees don't matter in forum discussion -- only the strength and clarity of one's argument.
This is an attitude that can make the world a much better place.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also Robespierre I appologize for being snippy about the medical bills. I thought you didn't believe that anyone should have insurance and that everyone should pay out of pocket.
It would be really nice if we could all pay medical costs out of our pockets, but the cost of even a simple surgery are so high that is isn't do-able anymore.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I will pay in MUCH more over my lifetime than I will ever get out of it.
Then why have insurance? You don't need it if you are so certain you will pay more in than you will get out.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: snippy about the medical bills.
No problem. I understand medical bills are crazy. I just think that the current legal structure encourages run-away prices. We are shielded from the real costs of health care when companies pay our insurance and the gov. helps too. Free market forces can fix this problem. If each person knew how much their insurance costs, it would go a long way toward some understanding on this.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
aj, Your boyfriend's working conditions are the way they are because of the Union contract, a contract that he has a part in forming just as he pays his share in dues. His wages are the way they are because of the contract, his hours are as they are because of the contract, and his benefits plan is the way it is because of the contract. I place the same people who whine about dues in the same lot as those who whine about car registration fees, but love the fact that there are clean, smooth roads. If the wages, hours, and conduct agreement had been as good without the Union, why on earth would there be one? And if it would remain as good as they are without the Union, why don't the employees decertify? __________
I do think it's sweet that you called me sweet. Does your bf know about us?
_________
quote:Please tell me how many heads of Unions are female.
I don't know. I wonder if it's the same reason that most congressmen or engineers or philosophy students are men. Or why HR people are female. I'm sure there is an excellent reason why this is the case. Admittedly, most of the vocal and effective organizers were men. To be more specific, college-educated men. But the good thing is that the contract that will be approved will be gender neutral, and the wages and benefits for everyone in the store will be better because of it. There will even actually be a pension. (Yes, I work for a 250 person grocery store which grosses over 60 million dollars a year, and there is no pension plan. One of the managers admitted to trying burn employees over six months so that he wouldn't have to give them a raise. He has been a manager for 6 years, and it took this Union effort for him to finally be talked to about this practice, though complaints have been launched for as long as I remember.)
______________
For the record, I hate strikes. I hate strikes and lock-outs and strategic firings and union-busting law firms. I hate it all. I do respect that 97 percent of the voters approved the strike. Look at these numbers:
quote:In elections this week at seven local unions of the United Food and Commercial Workers, almost 70,000 supermarket workers in Southern California voted overwhelmingly to reject the demands of their employers and to authorize their leaders to call a strike. The vote to reject the proposals surpassed 97 percent.
Some 85 percent of workers eligible to vote did so in an unprecedented turnout of support for rejection of the offer.
quote:Workers have also announced that they will only target one supermaket chain in order to avoid inconveniencing their customers. Workers at the two other supermarket chains will urge their employers to allow them to stay on the job and not to act on Employer threats to lock the workers out of the stores. The other chains are urged by the seven locals on behalf of their customers and neighbors not to spread the dispute by engaging in a retaliatory lockout.
[ October 14, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes but the actual amount of representation he has with the Union, is probably less than he would get by calling his congressperson. He didn't vote to establish the Union dues purloining from his salary, he was still in college at that point. You HAVE to be Union to work for the Illinois department of transportation up in until you be come an Engineer IV.
At that point they turn on you you are management and the "enemy". They are totally screwing what should be the higher paid more qualified engineers because of the demands the unions are making for the lower level employees both engineers and non-engineers. Do you know how much money a public works roadway project costs? The peon engineers routinely do 50 million dollar projects without blinking. The "managment" engineers which have had at least 5 years of experience get completely gouged in pay during budget cuts since they can't do any belt tightening or, horrors, LAY OFF union workers and then those same managment engineers are expected to act in the public trust on multi-billion dollar projects. So what happens? The government loses money right and left, because most Civil engineers work for the DOT until they hit the non-union point and then run screaming out the door for the nearest contractor. I can't blame them.
In my personal life, yes, the Unions are right now guaranteeing my bfs pay raises and for that I'm happy. But, as a taxpayer I realize how stupidly inefficent the whole system has become because of the Unions. I just think you should have a choice to be in a union or not, and not have that choice made for you regardless of where you are employed. If the Unions provide tangible benefits, then people would be happy to pay the duse. If they don't, then why should they pay the dues?
Also here in Chicago, Unions are much more out of control than a lot of the rest of the country. Look at the garbage worker strike that just took place here with some of the highest paid sanitation workers in the country. I believe the Chicago garbage men are making more than the supermarket employees and in a lot of ways my feelings are with the supermarket employees now that I am aware of all of the facts.
Another random note: Two good friends of mine (both female incidentally) were union negotiators for their community college district. The negotiating they did was very necessary. The interesting thing was that about 2 levels up in the heirarchy every one was male.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: I don't know. I wonder if it's the same reason that most congressmen or engineers or philosophy students are men. Or why HR people are female. I'm sure there is an excellent reason why this is the case. Admittedly, most of the vocal and effective organizers were men. To be more specific, college-educated men.
Don't get me started on women in engineering. That will get you in trouble here on hatrack because I know we have quite a few female engineers. I think over the last couple of centuries women are making a steady progression toward equality in skills that do not require 200-lb longshoremen. To me it seems like the equality started in literature, and then spread to the life sciences through nursing and then doctors, engineering is just one of the last bastions of machismo. I know there are some elements that may have to do with brain thinking patterns but I believe a lot of them have more to do with nature than nurture.
Also, I'll have to go back to my union history books, but I thought a lot of the driving forces behind early Unions were actually laborers wives rather than the laborers themselves. I believe there were at least a few women in the inception of the Union movment, but they didn't stay at the top of the organizations for any lengths of time.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The government loses money right and left, because most Civil engineers work for the DOT until they hit the non-union point and then run screaming out the door for the nearest contractor. I can't blame them.
It sounds like the managers need to Unionize. That's often the case in a multi-tiered system.
About women in engineering: I don't know the answer, but I have eyes and know that there is a problem. I don't think that the Hatrack posting population is an accurate sampling. There is a disparity, and I think that's the reason we should get in to it on Hatrack.
[ October 15, 2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'll start a thread on it tomorrow. I know I don't have anywhere near the answers. I confuse myself sometimes as to why I think the way I do when other females don't see the obvious logic and males do.
THough that doesn't happen here on Hatrack which is why I like it
AJ
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
quote:How do you think insurance companies make so much money?
Actually, they make alot of money from stocks and bonds. I remember hearing about an independant study that has shown that when the stock market sucks, premiums rise.
They initially did the study to find out if the malpractice insurance premiums in Texas would go down after initiating a cap on malpractice awards.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Why don't we have national auto-insurance? Because not everyone has a car. Also, those who own $100,000 cars would pay the same as those who own $500 cars. Would this be fair? This is the type of situation we would be in if we had national health insurance.
We all don't have cars, but we all do have bodies.
quote:Insurance does NOT spread the risk at all. I will pay in MUCH more over my lifetime than I will ever get out of it.
You know, that makes me want to wish a chronic and/or serious illness on to you. Just to see how the health care system really works, to see truly how much things cost out of pocket, and how it feels to be one of the sick and not one of the robustly healthy.
The problem with free market healthcare is that they can have your ass over a barrel. Appendicitis? No time to find the best ER or doctor. You need whoever can take it out the fastest so that you don't die. Doesn't matter how much you have to pay, you need it done, and then right at that moment.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
My son, by the age of two, had racked up what would have been over $100K in medical bills. He's still on antibiotics, which could possibly be required every day for the rest of his life. He's going in for another surgery tomorrow morning.
Yeah, there could be some positive changes made in the health insurance realm. If things were different would the actual cost have been much less than $100K? Possibly. But go without insurance entirely? I sure hope not.
--Pop
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
A worker making $12/hr working full time will bring home $24,000 a year. The cost of living in California is between 1.5 and 2 times the national average, putting the poverty level in California between $27,000 and $36,000 per year for a family of four. So even though $12/hr might sound generous to some for an minimal skill position, it isn't enough to get these people out of poverty. Its questionable if even $18/hr puts these people above the California poverty level.
From my point of view, everyone who is working deserves to be paid a living wage. If I am not willing to pay the people who sew my clothes, and sell me my food enough to live on, how much better am I than the slave owner?
I am fully aware of the problems associated with unions and with their obuses, but who else is there who is fighting for the workers rights? Who else is there who is insisting that workers be treated fairly? Certainly not Walmart.
[ October 14, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Insurance does NOT spread the risk at all. I will pay in MUCH more over my lifetime than I will ever get out of it. How do you think insurance companies make so much money? They take your money, then make you dance upsidedown on a table to get it when you need it. They are not in the business of spreading the risk.
Take it from the person studying for the actuary exam, that is precisely what insurance companies do! Yes, they hope to make some profit on the deal -- their employees all demand to be paid -- but that is exactly the basic idea of all insurance.
quote: Actually, they make alot of money from stocks and bonds.
That's because it's another method of spreading risk. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Insurance companies unquestionably spread the risk. They also increase the risk, or at least they increase the amount that the average person pays for health care because they take a cut for distributing the risk. I don't think any of us would argue that the guy who processes your insurance claim or the woman who directs the insurance agency shouldn't be paid for their work. They deserve a cut, the only question is how big a cut, and when CEOs of insurance companies are getting multi-million dollar salaries -- I say they are taking more than they are worth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No argument from me, Rabbit! I think the cut CEOs of many companies in a wide variety of fields take is ridiculous.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Well, according to SEC filings, our CEO has been excersizing thousands of shares in options per week. He's been making several million dollars per week (I wish I could do that - even once!).
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I've brought up the illness I had a few years ago, the one that knocked me out of college; what I haven't mentioned is that by that time I hadn't had insurance for several years. What chewed up my savings were the expensive drugs I had to pay for myself. Besides that, I've been in and out of the hospital most of my early life, just to stay alive, and my family sure couldn't have paid for that without insurance. If anyone should be in favor of universal health insurance, it's me.
But I'm not. It's nothing to do with Rob's fancy arguments about communism--I literally can't afford to pay any attention to whether I deserve to live or not. I just don't think it will work. Any system of health care that tries to pay for too many poor people is doomed to eventual failure, one way or another, whether it's simple rationing of care, lack of research money, or something worse. I'm not that selfish.
I hear a lot about it working in Europe. Maybe it's less income disparity, fewer people, rationing of health care...I don't know. I also hear a lot about people coming here to get advanced technological care or to avoid a long waiting line; that could be the valve that blew. Who knows? Maybe I've got it wrong. I don't see how that can be, though.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Well, the strike still hasn't ended, and I needed some things, so I decided to cross the picket line. Didn't do much good.
The shelves were empty. The produce was going bad. Apparently they couldn't find anyone who knew how to cut meat, because there were a bunch of packages of ground beef, and nothing else. I got a few rainchecks (hand-written on plain white paper and stamped with the store stamp) for sale items they didn't have, and left otherwise-empty-handed. Well, except for Mooselet and a diaper bag.
I'm even more convinced that I disagree with the method and extent of the strike, though. It was bad when it was the store workers from three separate companies, but when the truckers joined in I could no longer believe there's an excuse. As far as I'm concerned it's a monopoly, and there's collusion going on, and if the companies themselves did this there would be a huge lawsuit and the companies would lose. The double-standard in this case is disturbing. Again, I feel for the plight of the workers, but I think the labor unions are the worse evil this time.
Now I gotta find tomatoes somewhere. Maybe there's a farmers' market nearby.
--Pop
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I feel sorry for the people who actually need to work. I have a friend who worked at one of the stores that went on strike in St.Louis. He was a part-time worker, and new, so he did not even get to vote on the strike. He had bills to pay, so he cannot afford to sit around and mope about free health care. He had a job, until the unions forced him out by striking. Unions need to be reworked so that their interests also include having a successful business to work at.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Unions are legalized monopoly on labor. They can do things that companies could never dream of.
msquared
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pop, isn't there a Smart&Final or Trader Joe's near you? That's where I'm getting groceries meanwhile. (Well, there and some of the little kosher markets nearby. But those I know you don't have in your neighborhood. )
I'm not real happy with the union, I agree. But I feel for the workers. Although my understanding is that the union is paying the salary of striking workers who picket a minimum number of hours per day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Unions need to be reworked so that their interests also include having a successful business to work at."
Out of interest, how would you rework a union to permit long-term strikes but still achieve this goal?
(As a side note, I'm glad you never intend to have serious medical problems. Congratulations.)
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: (As a side note, I'm glad you never intend to have serious medical problems. Congratulations.)
Explain yourself.
quote: Out of interest, how would you rework a union to permit long-term strikes but still achieve this goal?
As I said, the unions need to be concerned with the success/failure of the company in SOME way. I did not say that longterm strikes should be permitted or not. The strike of the grocery workers, is wrong in my opinion, but this does not mean i think ALL strikes are wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Explain yourself."
Well, you said it yourself: you never intend to pay more in medical expenses than you put into insurance. Over my lifetime, at my current medical insurance rate, I will pay around $150,000-$200,000 in insurance (including company-paid premiums), depending on inflation and the like. To date, I have probably benefited from only $9,000 - $10,000 in actual medical care since entering full-time employment about a decade ago; I'm a basically healthy guy.
It's nice to know that you and I will never get cancer, break a major bone, cut an important artery, lose a limb, suffer brain damage, have a heart failure in our 50s or 60s, or watch as our wives encounter complications during pregnancy. You know, when I think about it, I really get steamed just thinking about how basically healthy guys like us can't go work for companies that don't pay health benefits; after all, think how much more they could pay healthy guys like us every month if we weren't kicking back a few hundred bucks of salary to subsidize all those unlucky, unhealthy genetic throwbacks, eh?
"As I said, the unions need to be concerned with the success/failure of the company in SOME way. I did not say that longterm strikes should be permitted or not. The strike of the grocery workers, is wrong in my opinion, but this does not mean i think ALL strikes are wrong."
I don't quite understand why THIS strike is necessarily more wrong than any other long-term strike that intends to defend what is perceived as a right or benefit of a company's employees.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Well, you said it yourself: you never intend to pay more in medical expenses than you put into insurance. Over my lifetime, at my current medical insurance rate, I will pay around $150,000-$200,000 in insurance (including company-paid premiums), depending on inflation and the like. To date, I have probably benefited from only $9,000 - $10,000 in actual medical care since entering full-time employment about a decade ago;
I am with you so far...
quote: It's nice to know that you and I will never get cancer, break a major bone, cut an important artery, lose a limb, suffer brain damage, have a heart failure in our 50s or 60s, or watch as our wives encounter complications during pregnancy.
Your wonderful sarcasm plays well. It really helps you make your point.
You beg the question. Perhaps if you had ALL of those things happen to you, you would use up your $200,000 paid in. However, it is unlikely that you will ever use that much money. Go ahead and add in the total amount you have paid into medicare as well.
quote: I don't quite understand why THIS strike is necessarily more wrong than any other long-term strike that intends to defend what is perceived as a right or benefit of a company's employees.
The difference is that the perception of health care as a right could not be more wrong. The bill of rights enumerates no such right. The unions seem to think that their employee's should get FULL health coverage for free, even though the price has shot through the roof, and profits have fallen. The unions would rather destroy the business than actually solve the problem.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Moose, I just thought I'd mention the following, in case you missed it earlier.
quote: Officials with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, representing an estimated 70,000 employees throughout the Southland and beyond, said the clerks voted overwhelmingly to authorize a walkout that could affect Ralphs, Albertsons and Vons stores.
Connie Leyva, president of UFCW Local 1428, said that only one of the three chains would be targeted.
"We will be meeting with the federal mediator today, and depending on the outcome of that, we will determine the target chain," Leyva said. "We will be targeting one chain. We're targeting one chain because we are asking the other chains not to lock out their employees, so that they will still be able to go to work, and the customers will have a place to shop."
quote:Union officials decided to target only one chain, but operators of Ralphs and Albertsons then ordered a lockout of their union employees. Maynard said that 21,000 Vons employees are on strike and 49,000 workers at Ralphs and Albertsons are locked out.
. . .
According to a joint statement issued by the three companies shortly after the strike was announced, "the unions agreed that a strike against one company would be considered a strike against all three companies, and as a defensive move Albertsons and Ralphs will lock out their employees."
If labor is going to organize itself into barganing cartels, why should the stores, which share the same contract with the unions, not act in such a manner?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Because that is illegal. However, the unions got the Federal Gov. to pass laws that allows them to do things that would get a busines busted in a heart beat.
Rob is partly right about the healt care. When people do not pay for their health care, they do not care what they are charged. If you have insurance, do you shop around to get the best deal so that you can save your insurer money? Of course not. Why not?
msquared
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
**keeps a sharp eye out for any incoming phone calls**
One nice thing about the strike (in a really wicked way), is that we're getting less fluff calls (calls to check their orders - when they've got the darned reports!), and that the callers from Vons are actually listening to us, instead of copping attitudes and blaming us for their mistakes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fairly basic math that shows most people who get health insurance will spend more than they get out of it. Let’s assume 100% efficiency in the insurance pool (no profits for the insurance company, no expenses allocating the benefits or collecting premiums). Also, assume equal premiums per person of $1200 a year (I know that’s low, but I’ve got student health insurance and that’s the number I know).
To break even, you need to get $1200 in benefits Because we assumed true efficiency, the average (the mean, or total benefits paid divided by total number of insured) benefit is $1200.
However, there is a floor on the least amount of benefits you can receive: $0. There is theoretically no ceiling (although some companies have one or two million dollar caps on lifetime benefits). In large samples with this configuration, the mean benefit tends to be higher than the median benefit (the benefit amount at which half the insured receive more benefits and half less benefits).
If you’re having trouble seeing why, consider that one person receiving the lowest benefit counteracts one person making a double benefit ($2400), but one person receiving 1,000,000 in benefits requires 833 people to offset their contribution to the average, bringing down the median significantly. The overall effects are not that drastic because most deviations above or below the average benefit will be relatively small, but the effect is present nonetheless.
By the way, changing to more realistic assumptions makes the distance between the mean and the median larger, especially since some money will come out of the benefit pool for admin expenses and profits.
All that being said, not having health insurance is one of the greatest economic risks you can run and is never a good idea once more basic needs such as food and shelter are taken care of. Having a major health problem raises expenses and lowers income, eating your cash flow from two sides. Few people can survive financially if they’re stuck with a $100,000 health care bill – and that’s not close to as high as it could be in some cases.
I have great sympathy for the health care dilemma facing the truly poor (working or not), since lack of access to regular health care increases the risk of facing a major health expense someday.
My sympathy is less or non-existent to those people (I know too many) who have a new car and a nice television and fancy clothes right out of school but aren’t buying health insurance. Even though it’s harder to get if your employer doesn’t provide it, there are enough alternatives available that a single person making a decent income can afford it if s/he prioritizes correctly.
All of which has nothing to do with the strike, but medical policy is near and dear to my heart, so there you go.
Dagonee
PS, I know I didn’t give the true mathematical reason for the difference between mean and median, but the conceptual reasoning is still valid. I just didn’t feel like going into normal and lopsided distributions.
[ October 20, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is theoretically possible for all people to put less insurance than is paid out, due to the aggregation of investments by the insurance companies.
This would of course require insurance companies to have a near perfect knowledge of the future.
So the best one can expect is for people to on average pay in less than they receive in benefits, which is slightly possible, if unlikely.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Unions need to be reworked so that their interests also include having a successful business to work at.
Nobody eats if the store closes down. There is an incredible misconception that Unions = strike. I think it's the inclination for media to see the world in terms of crisis instead of continuity. The workers don't want to strike for the sake of striking, they want to work without the fear of tripping over the curb on the way home, and the extent to which the business is successful, the workers want to beat back that simple fear.
Seeing Unions in terms of strikes makes about as much sense as seeing the federal government in terms of prisions.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I have been a member of a union and we managed to fix systems without striking.
Most times, the management would only address issues when the union leveled a threat to strike. Without that ability, the company wouldn't listen to the workers, because it would have no contract to stick to. Even WITH a contract, the company didn't stick to it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Perhaps if you had ALL of those things happen to you, you would use up your $200,000 paid in."
Robespierre, I don't think you realize how expensive even one or two of the things I listed -- brain damage, cancer, etc. -- actually are. Consider that a single MRI is often billed at over $700.
Medical insurance, like most forms of insurance, is really a type of gambling; it's betting on catastrophe. If you're lucky enough to never need it, and only see the "benefit" when you're doing $10 copays on regular checkups, so much the better -- but trust me: in an actual crisis, it's definitely worthwhile.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
I didn't mean it that way. (And I appreciate your kind thoughts. I could freakin' never make it through basic engineering classes. Thank goodness we have people who do. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Although my understanding is that the union is paying the salary of striking workers who picket a minimum number of hours per day.