New tax rate

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Are you actually that stupid, and expect anyone else to be equally stupid as to believe that something OTHER than the employees of a company do all of the money-making and that somehow their paychecks and whatever benefits they get come from someplace other than their time, labor and skills?

Employees and theior benefits aren't company expenses. They're your assets.

Look who's being an elitist...

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

spd, extortion is when a boss tells you what he's going to pay you, take it or leave it.

Everything I get comes from sitting with my boss at a bargaining table and open books and ledgers.

Surely if you are opening books and ledgers, you know that all of those things are indeed valid company expenses. Anyhint a business pays for is an expense, whether it helps create a return or not. In fact, if it doesn't help in some way to give a return then its hard to justify as a valid expense. Those company paid portion of taxes (being paid by the employer for the employee) are typicall listed on the books as "payroll liabilities". I'm not sure what kind of books you are looking at.

As far as the employees making all of the money, that's not true either. Yes they do the work, but without good management and vision any business is doomed for failure. Don't flatter yourself so much, without management telling you what needs to be done, you'd be standing around with your thumb up your ass watching the timeclock. Or maybe you do that anyway?

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by TKanaley

You don't know squat. Two of my employees, one that's been with me for 23 years and the other 15, are basically millionaires in land holdings. That's land they own title to not land they borrowed on. They don't need to work for me if they didn't want. And they could easily start their own business's if they had a mind to, but they choose to stay because I take care of them.

None of which has anything to do with what I said.

The reason unions exist today is because people like you couldn't keep their jobs unless you had the union around to protect them.

Sorry, but companies will always need employees.

I'm pretty sure that your employer could easily find a replacement for you

As I'm sure you could drop off the face of the earth today and life would still go on for everyone else.

and I'll bet if you didn't belong to a union and your boss were to stumble upon your postings in this thread, you'd be quickly walking down the road kicking a can as one of your subordinates steps in to take your place.

Keep fantasizing bub...

When I worked in the auto industry and was a UAW member, I recall a whole lot of workers who had the same kind of attitude as you, but the company couldn't fire them because of the union.

The company couldn't fire them because there was a working agreement the employees weren't breaking.

Geez it's really that simple, REALLY SIMPLE, nothing complicated about that concept at all TK but you and your ilk still refuse to get it.

This was back in the 70's when US automakers were in the shitter, because of the lack of quality control that was largely because the workers themselves just didn't care.

LOL! Now the US auto industry was churning out chitty cars and it's the assembly line workers fault?!?!?!

Gee that's just rich.

So spare me your self righteous indignation as I've known people like you my entire life and am quite familiar with the modus operandi of your type.

And I yours.

I'm not impressed!

Me neither.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by TKanaley

Actually, I work in the shop and produce with the employees. I also design and market the product that we sell and without that provision, nobody works.

And without the employees whose work you're selling, your business couldn't produce the income it does. Remember, the difference between what your employees are worth and what they're paid is PROFIT.

Since I personally produce about 10% of goods sold in any given week and in addition, do the book keeping, product design, marketing, bill paying and all things in addition to production, I do a lot more than just earn my keep.

Doesn't negate what I said - your employees support themselves AND YOU.

They're the whores. The customers are the johns. You're just the madame and if you drop dead tomorrow, sex will still happen without your brokerage skills.

No sh!t. What does that have to do with what you were responding to?

You're the one who pointed out that your insurance plan covers ER visits as if that were special.

I don't care

You care. Admit it.

Where was it said I said he was wrong?




They get paid for what they do and I never said they didn't earn their benefits.

Yes you did. You said YOU pay for their medical coverage. You said that it's a company expense. "And yes, I do personally write the check each month." You even said that I don't pay for my own medical coverage! "Said as if you yourself pay your own premiums. "

One thing my employees don't do and that is design a marketable product. That is my domain and is what keeps our company consistantly 6 months behind in orders as we have been for the last 10 years.

So what? That doesn't negate a thing I said.

You still cannot do without the employees you have, each and every one is not only supporting themself but helping to support you as well.

They are both





Were you looking in a mirror as you wrote that??

like I said, the cats litterbox holds more meaning. Here kitty, kitty...

You should stop playing in chit.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by spdrcr137

and if you dont like the negotiation you put them out of business, or threaten to.

That would not only be a violation of law, it would be stupid. Employers who are out of business are of no use to us.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

That would not only be a violation of law, it would be stupid. Employers who are out of business are of no use to us.

I think I understand why you need a negotiator to get a job.

[streetg]

[QUOTE=09 XBones;2214545]
Employees and theior benefits aren't company expenses. They're your assets.



QUOTE]

Employees are ocourse an asset, as well as an expense. What you fail to admit, intentionally I';m guessing, is that without the initial vision, idea and PERSONAL RISK, those employees would have no employer. Without managers and managerial support like book keepers, salesman and such who do a lot to maximize profit, and not just on the backs of workers as I'm sure would be your response, but through streamlining company processes and minimizing stock costs n such they wouldn't have the $$$ for as large of a workforce. It works both ways. And, many employees in a union shop are not much more than an expense when seniority trumps performance if someone needs to be let go. Keeping an employee who no longer performs to the best of his ability, because some union rule won't allow a performance/production based decision, and a less senior go getter has to take the hit it's good for nobody as far as keeping the company healthy and profitable , which is the goal and benefits all from the owners to the lowest worker on the ladder. We've all seen the guy with the "I'm done bustin a$$, I've been here x amount of years " attitude, even though they have the ability to be as productive as ever, the union attitude teaches the just do enough to scrape by work ethic, especially when seniority is part of the mix.


GO PATRIOTS!!!!

[TKanaley]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

None of which has anything to do with what I said.

Er, does anybody really care what you said?

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Sorry, but companies will always need employees.

And all employees need an employer.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

As I'm sure you could drop off the face of the earth today and life would still go on for everyone else.

Never said I was that important. You on the other hand seem to think you are. Believe me bones, you're not.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Keep fantasizing bub...

I do, but you're still here.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

And without the employees whose work you're selling, your business couldn't produce the income it does. Remember, the difference between what your employees are worth and what they're paid is PROFIT.

The difference between you and I is that I have a great amount of respect for my employees. You on the other hand, obviously have no respect for the people you work for.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Doesn't negate what I said - your employees support themselves AND YOU.

Not if the business isn't there to provide them with work.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

They're the whores. The customers are the johns. You're just the madame and if you drop dead tomorrow, sex will still happen without your brokerage skills.

So, what you're saying is that you're nothing but a whore?

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

You're the one who pointed out that your insurance plan covers ER visits as if that were special.

That wasn't my point, but your lack of reading comprehension doesn't' surprise me.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

You still cannot do without the employees you have, each and every one is not only supporting themself but helping to support you as well.

You're repeating yourself. I never said I couldn't run the company in it's present form without good employees. On the other hand, if all I had to choose from were people like you, I'd be a one man shop which isn't uncommon in my line of work.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

You should stop playing in chit.

As soon as I post this, I'll be through playing with you. Same thing.

[screaminrdking]

The bottom line is


Government gets more, hard working citizens get less!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[09 XBones]

[quote=streetg;2214637]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Employees are ocourse an asset, as well as an expense. What you fail to admit, intentionally I';m guessing, is that without the initial vision, idea and PERSONAL RISK, those employees would have no employer.

This isn't true, though many employers would like employees to believe that. What I do as well as many others required no initial vision by my employer, no more than if you decided to open a dairy and sell milk in grocery stores. Very few people work in a situation that is really "unique" that wouldn't exist were it not for someone elses "vision" but that does not mean that without that person's vision the employee(s) wouldn't have other jobs.

And it's true employers often sacrifice their own assets, as well as time, and often take risks. That's the nature of many businesses. So what does that entitle the employer to? Most employers did not invent the wheel...

Without managers and managerial support like book keepers, salesman and such who do a lot to maximize profit, and not just on the backs of workers as I'm sure would be your response, but through streamlining company processes and minimizing stock costs n such they wouldn't have the $$$ for as large of a workforce.

No, streamlining causes a smaller workforce. And your contention that the actions of the heiarchy result in a larger workforce is also wrong. No company keeps people on the payroll who aren't necessary.

This is most often pointed out whenever employers balk at a minimum wage increase, that it would force them to fire some workers in order to pay others more. It NEVER happens and in fact, every increase in the minimum wage has always lead to immediate job gains, not losses.

A company that sells carpet cleaning needs carpet cleaners, that is their product. That is the income, the bread and butter. The bookeeper and the switchboard receptionist do not bring a dime into the company, yet they're as necessary as the carpet cleaners.

What is NOT necessary is the owner, or his "risk" or his sacrifices. Because without him there will always be a need for clean carpets and the people who clean them.

It works both ways. And, many employees in a union shop are not much more than an expense when seniority trumps performance if someone needs to be let go. Keeping an employee who no longer performs to the best of his ability, because some union rule won't allow a performance/production based decision, and a less senior go getter has to take the hit it's good for nobody as far as keeping the company healthy and profitable , which is the goal and benefits all from the owners to the lowest worker on the ladder. We've all seen the guy with the "I'm done bustin a$$, I've been here x amount of years " attitude, even though they have the ability to be as productive as ever, the union attitude teaches the just do enough to scrape by work ethic, especially when seniority is part of the mix.

In spite of you typical anti union bravado, a seniority system is very rarely employed in a union shop. If what you explain were actually true, or true enough to make a calculatable difference, no employer would agree to a contract that includes a seniority clause.

The "last in, first out" clause is often confused by laymen as seniority, and is loosely based on it. But it's necessary to prevent employers from picking and choosing who stays and who goes when some must be laid off, because it's been proven time and again the deciding factor is always money: I.E. the people with the most seniority who are paid the most are the ones who employers seek to dismiss while it keeps the lower paid newer people... The practice is called churning.

In a shop where people take an attitude such as you describe "I been here X amount of years" and fail to produce the issue would be discussed at negotiations as to how to deal with the problem effectively, but FAIRLY.

The problem with explaining these concepts to nonunion people is that they cannot conceptualize how this all works in the real world other than how it's described by corporate propaganda. ONe of the biggest concepts that tends to escape the nonunion worker (and newly organized) is how to get production out of a workforce without the amateur employer's greatest tool: the threat of and power to fire you indiscriminately.

[YankeeBob]

[quote=09 XBones;2214867]

Originally Posted by streetg

This isn't true, though many employers would like employees to believe that. What I do as well as many others required no initial vision by my employer, no more than if you decided to open a dairy and sell milk in grocery stores. Very few people work in a situation that is really "unique" that wouldn't exist were it not for someone elses "vision" but that does not mean that without that person's vision the employee(s) wouldn't have other jobs.

And it's true employers often sacrifice their own assets, as well as time, and often take risks. That's the nature of many businesses. So what does that entitle the employer to? Most employers did not invent the wheel...



No, streamlining causes a smaller workforce. And your contention that the actions of the heiarchy result in a larger workforce is also wrong. No company keeps people on the payroll who aren't necessary.

This is most often pointed out whenever employers balk at a minimum wage increase, that it would force them to fire some workers in order to pay others more. It NEVER happens and in fact, every increase in the minimum wage has always lead to immediate job gains, not losses.

A company that sells carpet cleaning needs carpet cleaners, that is their product. That is the income, the bread and butter. The bookeeper and the switchboard receptionist do not bring a dime into the company, yet they're as necessary as the carpet cleaners.

What is NOT necessary is the owner, or his "risk" or his sacrifices. Because without him there will always be a need for clean carpets and the people who clean them.



In spite of you typical anti union bravado, a seniority system is very rarely employed in a union shop. If what you explain were actually true, or true enough to make a calculatable difference, no employer would agree to a contract that includes a seniority clause.

The "last in, first out" clause is often confused by laymen as seniority, and is loosely based on it. But it's necessary to prevent employers from picking and choosing who stays and who goes when some must be laid off, because it's been proven time and again the deciding factor is always money: I.E. the people with the most seniority who are paid the most are the ones who employers seek to dismiss while it keeps the lower paid newer people... The practice is called churning.

In a shop where people take an attitude such as you describe "I been here X amount of years" and fail to produce the issue would be discussed at negotiations as to how to deal with the problem effectively, but FAIRLY.

The problem with explaining these concepts to nonunion people is that they cannot conceptualize how this all works in the real world other than how it's described by corporate propaganda. ONe of the biggest concepts that tends to escape the nonunion worker (and newly organized) is how to get production out of a workforce without the amateur employer's greatest tool: the threat of and power to fire you indiscriminately.

Wow. Just, wow.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by TKanaley

Er, does anybody really care what you said?

You seem to.

And all employees need an employer.

Making the circle complete - the stool falls over if the 3 legs aren't there.

Never said I was that important. You on the other hand seem to think you are. Believe me bones, you're not.

Er, does anybody really care what you think?

The difference between you and I is that I have a great amount of respect for my employees. You on the other hand, obviously have no respect for the people you work for.

Where'd you get that idea?

Not if the business isn't there to provide them with work.

Business doesn't provide work. Demand does.

So, what you're saying is that you're nothing but a whore?

In our own way, we all are.

That wasn't my point, but your lack of reading comprehension doesn't' surprise me.

Sure seemed like it was your point.

You're repeating yourself.

Not my fault you didn't comprehend the first time.

I never said I couldn't run the company in it's present form without good employees. On the other hand, if all I had to choose from were people like you, I'd be a one man shop which isn't uncommon in my line of work.

You don't have to say it, it's in your attitude. You THINK you're "giving" your employees a job. You THINK (even said so much) you're "giving" your employees medical insurance...

If you examine the balance sheets, it's your employees who are giving to you, you're the one with the hand out.

As soon as I post this, I'll be through playing with you.

Promise?

[TKanaley]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Making the circle complete - the stool falls over if the 3 legs aren't there.

Maybe because the forth one is up your arse?

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Er, does anybody really care what you think?

You seem to.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Where'd you get that idea?

How bout everytime you open your mouth on the subject.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Business doesn't provide work. Demand does.

But someone has to have the initiative to tap into that demand and build on it.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

In our own way, we all are.

You can speak for yourself. I'm sure you're quite good at selling yourself to the lowest denominator.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Sure seemed like it was your point.

Like I said; "your lack of reading comprehension doesn't' surprise me."

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Not my fault you didn't comprehend the first time.

I don't speak lib, so if I don't understand most of what you say it's because it defies comprehension

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

You don't have to say it, it's in your attitude. You THINK you're "giving" your employees a job. You THINK (even said so much) you're "giving" your employees medical insurance...

I do provide benefits that I don't have to provide. And I do provide people jobs even though my business would run just fine if I decided become a one man shop as most of my competitors are. What part of the word "provide" don't you understand?

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

If you examine the balance sheets, it's your employees who are giving to you, you're the one with the hand out.

My employees have quite a different take on that, but carry on...

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Promise?

Debating with you has been about as much fun as debating with a fence post. And I do apologize to the fence post for the intellect comparison. I'll be glad to give it up when you decide to.

[thrasher]

[TKanaley]

Originally Posted by thrasher

I agree with you for once.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

And it's true employers often sacrifice their own assets, as well as time, and often take risks. That's the nature of many businesses. So what does that entitle the employer to? Most employers did not invent the wheel...

I believe it entitles them to ownership.

Originally Posted by TKanaley

I agree with you for once.

+1 on that