Michael Madigan wrote:
> It's never necessary, that's the point.  The states with the fewest
> unions have the greatest economies and the lowest unemployment

Hi Michael,

"Never" is too strong a word. I work for a guy who will fine you (a lot)
for following your manager's instructions *if* the instruction doesn't
result in a favorable outcome, and fire you if you don't pay. If you
file for unemployment after being fired he will fight it and cut a deal
with the state to not have to pay if he keeps you on for 7 hours a week.
The state is OK with that - "right to work".

We have to bring our own toilet paper, take our lunch trash home and if
our light bulb burns out we have to buy a new one ourselves. There is no
AC in the summer, no heat in the winter, no cleaning service and we are
forbidden to clean ourselves - we might break something.

The place has not been even swept in maybe 5 years. They clean outside
where the public can see, though.

If we have an on the job accident we are ordered to claim complete
responsibility for it ourselves and hold him blameless. He fires anyone 
who files for workman's comp. We had a guy fall headfirst down a stairs 
- fired for filing workman's comp.

He drives a Mercedes to work - his "beater". He has a house on the beach
and another house in an inland gated community in case the beach is
evacuated.

Sometimes unions are necessary. Oh, and the state unemployment is around 9%.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to