# Maybe they should move



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Most Americans would probably have a hard time wrapping their heads around a $350,000 salary. In fact, government data cited by Sam Dogen of the Financial Samurai blog shows that some 95% of U.S. households don’t pull in that much. 

The median household income in the U.S. is $57,782, with places like San Francisco and New York City showing medians income for a family at $96,265 and $79,781, respectively, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The thing is, that kind of income, while relatively huge, is barely enough, according to Dogen, for a family to lead a comfortable life in coastal counties — where almost half of the nation’s population calls home.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

California and NY are two main reasons there is "income inequality" in this country. They want to blame it on companies and I guess they are not wrong. Companies should drop income in those states to make it more equal across the country. 

Consider how many hours it takes a worker in LA to buy a car compared to how many hours someone from Miss. will have to work to buy the same car.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> California and NY are two main reasons there is "income inequality" in this country. They want to blame it on companies and I guess they are not wrong. Companies should drop income in those states to make it more equal across the country.
> 
> Consider *how many hours it takes a worker in LA to buy a car* compared to how many hours someone from Miss. will have to work to buy the same car.


Depends on the car

Californians love Maserati. Some cities like Beverly Hills, Newport Beach and Malibu are no brainers for exotic car spotting.

Maserati is extremely popular in New York, but you are actually likely to see Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Aston Martins and others roaming the New York streets although seeing them in the city itself is not likely. Public transportation is the travel of choice there. 

https://www.woodsidecredit.com/states-love-exotic-cars/


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

My niece was snapped up by a prestigious Bay Area law firm when she graduated from law school a few years ago. With an ungodly salary. Almost 400k. Her husband is an engineer with a great job. They managed to find a one bedroom apartment they can afford within a decent commute to their respective offices. 
I hope when they eventually move back to the Midwest they aren’t floored by the paltry (in comparison) salaries and remember that it’s not what you make. It’s what you keep.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Depends on the car
> 
> Californians love Maserati. Some cities like Beverly Hills, Newport Beach and Malibu are no brainers for exotic car spotting.
> 
> ...


You misunderstood my point. I said *same* car. 

Inflation had caused those areas to see an increase in wages but car makers have to cater to the entire country. If a VW beetle was 100k in LA it would be a no brainier to fly to Mississippi and buy the same car for 50k and drive it back. So beetles are relatively the same price in LA as they are in Mississippi. Relatively being they will probably fleece you a bit because of wages but not enough to make it double. 

I use LA and Mississippi because the median wages difference is about half.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> You misunderstood my point. I said *same* car.
> 
> Inflation had caused those areas to see an increase in wages but car makers have to cater to the entire country. If a VW beetle was 100k in LA it would be a no brainier to fly to Mississippi and buy the same car for 50k and drive it back. So beetles are relatively the same price in LA as they are in Mississippi. Relatively being they will probably fleece you a bit because of wages but not enough to make it double.
> 
> I use LA and Mississippi because the median wages difference is about half.


Oh, I know. I understood. My point is, and as you said earlier, the wage gap (car gap too) is most poignant in the same states that point to it the most, NY and CA


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> My niece was snapped up by a prestigious Bay Area law firm when she graduated from law school a few years ago. With an ungodly salary. Almost 400k. Her husband is an engineer with a great job. They managed to find a one bedroom apartment they can afford within a decent commute to their respective offices.
> I hope when they eventually move back to the Midwest they aren’t floored by the paltry (in comparison) salaries and remember that it’s not what you make. It’s what you keep.


Yep, that's the point of the ungodly salaries in those areas. My son also lives in the Bay Area and makes a salary that a lot of people would probably choke on. He lives in a 500 square foot walk-up studio apartment and rides the city bus to work. His rent is substantially more than our mortgage on a 3 bedroom detached house in southern California (which isn't the cheapest place in the world, either, but the Bay Area makes us look like backwoods hillbillies if you're just going on housing prices).

He doesn't want to move. It's worth it to him, he enjoys what he does and where he lives. But to lump him in with the "rich" people based solely on his salary doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> You misunderstood my point. I said *same* car.
> 
> Inflation had caused those areas to see an increase in wages but car makers have to cater to the entire country. If a VW beetle was 100k in LA it would be a no brainier to fly to Mississippi and buy the same car for 50k and drive it back. So beetles are relatively the same price in LA as they are in Mississippi. Relatively being they will probably fleece you a bit because of wages but not enough to make it double.
> 
> I use LA and Mississippi because the median wages difference is about half.


You have to take all of the emissions stuff into account on the prices too. We had to get some stuff done to a van we bought in CO when we got to CA so that it passed the emissions standards to get it smogged, which you need to do to get it registered here. Plus all of the environmental/road use/etc taxes fees and whatnot you pay to register. You may not necessarily save much buying out of state if it's a state where that stuff isn't already included on the vehicle.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

If I earned 1 more cent Id have a 6 figure income.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> It’s what you keep.


I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> You have to take all of the emissions stuff into account on the prices too. We had to get some stuff done to a van we bought in CO when we got to CA so that it passed the emissions standards to get it smogged, which you need to do to get it registered here. Plus all of the environmental/road use/etc taxes fees and whatnot you pay to register. You may not necessarily save much buying out of state if it's a state where that stuff isn't already included on the vehicle.


That's correct but the car isn't twice the price like houses are. I just used cars because they are a big ticket item but the scenario works with any other goods too. 

It's not just those areas either. I was offered a job in Houston with a 60% raise or get laid off. In actuality it was a cut in pay and it's only 2 hours from me. I took the lay off instead. Austin is going crazy too.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

When they move near you they will drive up prices of everything.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish said:


> You have to take all of the emissions stuff into account on the prices too. We had to get some stuff done to a van we bought in CO when we got to CA so that it passed the emissions standards to get it smogged, which you need to do to get it registered here. Plus all of the environmental/road use/etc taxes fees and whatnot you pay to register. You may not necessarily save much buying out of state if it's a state where that stuff isn't already included on the vehicle.


All new car prices are higher because of CARB


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> If I earned 1 more cent Id have a 6 figure income.


You have a lot of cents


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> That's correct but the car isn't twice the price like houses are. I just used cars because they are a big ticket item but the scenario works with any other goods too.
> 
> It's not just those areas either. I was offered a job in Houston with a 60% raise or get laid off. In actuality it was a cut in pay and it's only 2 hours from me. I took the lay off instead. Austin is going crazy too.


It's all of the Californians fleeing the state but then wanting to turn the state they flee to into California. That's why part of our retirement plan is to take a good poll of all the Californians we can talk to and then moving to the area that no one mentions as attractive. Bonus points if we get an area that people think is an armpit and would never consider even visiting.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

10.000.1


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*Houston*
Age: 25
Salary: $45,000
Occupation: Payroll and HR administrator, Double Oak Storm Tex
Rent: $683.50, splitting a $1,367 two-bedroom townhome with her fiancé

*Minneapolis*
Age: 24
Salary: $47,500
Occupation: Resolution specialist at Ameriprise Financial
Rent: $870 for a bedroom in a two-bedroom apartment

*Oklahoma City*
Age: 24
Salary: ~$45,000
Occupation: Investment adviser, Voya Financial Advisors
Rent: $362.50, splitting a $725 one-bedroom apartment with his fiancée

*Charlotte, N.C.*
Age: 26
Salary: $48,000 (plus commission)
Occupation: Utility sales representative, Sealed Air
Rent: $1,400 for a one-bedroom apartment.

*Tucson, Ariz.*
Age: 27
Salary: $45,000
Occupation: Project specialist, University of Arizona Alumni Association
Rent: $800, including home-owner-association fees, for a two-bedroom condo


https://www.wsj.com/articles/five-cities-living-on-50k-a-year-11568296902


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> 10.000.1


Actually a penny would give you seven figures. 

10,000.01


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> It's all of the Californians fleeing the state but then wanting to turn the state they flee to into California. That's why part of our retirement plan is to take a good poll of all the Californians we can talk to and then moving to the area that no one mentions as attractive. Bonus points if we get an area that people think is an armpit and would never consider even visiting.


Sneaky


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

KOOL. I'm rolling in dough.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> KOOL. I'm rolling in dough.


I asked my volunteer fd Chief for a raise and he said sure, I'll add a coupla zeros on the next check.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

SRSLADE said:


> KOOL. I'm rolling in dough.


Sounds like my cousin.... He works in a cookie factory.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

While this subject will bring up endless "I know a guy..." stories,

I liken this to people that buy in flood planes, can't buy flood insurance, then complains when they get flooded out...

When you choose to work for a global conglomerate, you already know they are going to pay the absloute minimum they can get away with, screw you at every turn because anything going to YOU is money they can't brag about in their bank account or gamble away, or spend on luxury items...

When you get duped into 'Right To Work' labor union busting laws (paid for by people getting richer when they spend less on labor) not only do you loose protections, reasonable living (not existing) wages, but you also loose apprenticeship programs and have to barrow money for education you will spend the rest of your life trying to pay back (again, the rich get richer, you can't advance).

I can't have sympathy for someone that shoots themselves REPEATEDLY, entirely self inflicted.
The economic 'Middle Class' was created by labor unions.
So now it's find a niche you can make a living (vs. existence) or you scrape & scratch along being the 'Working Poor', getting just enough you don't rise up in mass, drag the ultra rich/ruling class out of their homes and kill them in front of their families...
Which is exactly what happened in worker uprisings before labor unions.

People that complain about subsistence Social Security/Disability being 'Entitlement Programs' have never had to deal with the top 1%. 
You want to see absloute entitlement, hang around with a few of the very rich, anything & everything goes simply because they have the money/power to get away with it...


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SRSLADE said:


> 10.000.1


U went from a seven figure to a six?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> Actually a penny would give you seven figures.
> 
> 10,000.01


It would make him a six, if he was making 10,000.09


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Actually a penny would give you seven figures.
> 
> 10,000.01


Your'e right. I should have written it correctly but I was a little tenths


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

in 1990 I declined an offer of a 225% pay increase from a Silicon Valley headhunter wanting me to move to their plant on the left coast because back then a dollar in California had between 25 to 30 cents of it's value here.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> While this subject will bring up endless "I know a guy..." stories,
> 
> I liken this to people that buy in flood planes, can't buy flood insurance, then complains when they get flooded out...
> 
> ...


I hate to break it to ya but what your novella has not much to do with the OP. 

Silicon Valley caused the wages and inflation to rise so much in California. They are not Union. Are you saying those poor people could be making a million a year with a union instead? Because we all know that 400k a year is chicken feed. 

Where is Norma Rae when you need her?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> While this subject will bring up endless "I know a guy..." stories,
> 
> I liken this to people that buy in flood planes, can't buy flood insurance, then complains when they get flooded out...
> 
> ...


Jealous envy will destroy you quicker and much more painfully than any rich person will. I've dealt with the top one percent on numerous occasions and found them to be most kind and generous. The bottom one percent?? Not so much.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> I hate to break it to ya but what your novella has not much to do with the OP.
> 
> Silicon Valley caused the wages and inflation to rise so much in California. They are not Union. Are you saying those poor people could be making a million a year with a union instead? Because we all know that 400k a year is chicken feed.
> 
> Where is Norma Rae when you need her?


I don't think it was me that missed the point,
Computers in general, and software in specific found a niche in the market and exploited it.

Unless YOU are a software programmer and cashed in on that specific niche in the world wide economy, then YOU are out here scratching with the rest of us.

Sports, entertainment (music, acting, etc) is another niche where an singular person/people can make money in serious amounts...

All this while the top 1% can spend endlessly and never burn through all the interest off the trust funds, never touching the principal...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Jealous envy will destroy you quicker and much more painfully than any rich person will. I've dealt with the top one percent on numerous occasions and found them to be most kind and generous. The bottom one percent?? Not so much.


Same here. Most 1% ers you can't even tell out of a line up.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> I don't think it was me that missed the point,
> Computers in general, and software in specific found a niche in the market and exploited it.
> 
> Unless YOU are a software programmer and cashed in on that specific niche in the world wide economy, then YOU are out here scratching with the rest of us.
> ...


That's just not been what I have seen in my lifetime. I don't have to be a software developer to have struck it rich. Like the gold Rush, it's the ones selling the picks that make the most money.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> That's just not been what I have seen in my lifetime. I don't have to be a software developer to have struck it rich. Like the gold Rush, it's the ones selling the picks that make the most money.


Proving my point.
When virtually everything is made by global conglomerates, when someone else MAKES the picks & shovels, and also retails the picks and shovels, the only job you get is on the bottom on the production line, or behind the counter of the retail outlet.

If you can't identify the 1% in a lineup, you can't identify $1,000 loafers, $100,000 watches, $300 shirts, $3,000 suits etc.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeepHammer said:


> If you can't identify the 1% in a lineup, you can't identify $1,000 loafers, $100,000 watches, $300 shirts, $3,000 suits etc.


I know a few 1%ers that wouldn't be caught dead in the attire you mention.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

wr said:


> I know a few 1%ers that wouldn't be caught dead in the attire you mention.


Indeed, I have met and interacted with Wall St. millionaires wearing suits that probably cost more than any vehicle I have ever owned. But, I have met many more multimillionaires that wear worn out, crap covered boots and drive vehicles with 20 plus years behind them. The former have a different attitude than the latter. If you think you can tell at a glance who is well off and who isn't, you likely are fooling yourself.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Proving my point.
> When virtually everything is made by global conglomerates, when someone else MAKES the picks & shovels, and also retails the picks and shovels, the only job you get is on the bottom on the production line, or behind the counter of the retail outlet.
> 
> If you can't identify the 1% in a lineup, you can't identify $1,000 loafers, $100,000 watches, $300 shirts, $3,000 suits etc.


I have a hand made (in Italy) Armani suit. Am I a 1%er? 

I know and have known (or met) many 1%ers. One man was a wholesale computer guy out of Houston. He bought everything with American Express and told me one time he didn't get his money on time and had to pay 3 million that month just in *interest*. He bought that much volume per month. You could see him in Galveston county with shorts and t-shirt drinking a Miller Lite. He did have a fishing boat that he took across the Gulf into Mexico and South America to go sail fishing but he still drank his Miller Lite and wore shorts. Never saw Ross Perot wear those either. Matthew McConaughey doesn't even like to wear deodorant. 

Maybe its just the Texas 1%ers that don't dress that way. I don't know Odell Beckham and have never been to Rodeo Drive though.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Hiro said:


> Indeed, I have met and interacted with Wall St. millionaires wearing suits that probably cost more than any vehicle I have ever owned. But, I have met many more multimillionaires that wear worn out, crap covered boots and drive vehicles with 20 plus years behind them. The former have a different attitude than the latter. If you think you can tell at a glance who is well off and who isn't, you likely are fooling yourself.


Exactly. Those that think they have to show it off constantly usually have less to show off.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I don't think I know any 1%ers, but I sure do know a lot of people with extremely expensive houses/cars/clothes that don't have two physical nickles to rub together.

I know a small handful that don't have expensive anything that could buy the above mentioned expensive houses/cars/clothes just with the money in their savings accounts.

Books and covers thing, I'm sure.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> Exactly. Those that think they have to show it off constantly usually have less to show off.


The three extremely wealthy men I know wouldn't be caught dead in the aforementioned attire. They tend to wear Wranglers, a nice dress shirt and Justin boots (no exotic hides) and none drive new vehicles.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I went into the post office the other day in a straw Bronner, a sleeveless t shirt, torn jeans tucked into my muck boots.
One may have presumptions about my mass or lack of wealth, and they would likely be wrong.
Judgements regarding money made on appearances are sadly based on class envy and ignorance.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> My niece was snapped up by a prestigious Bay Area law firm when she graduated from law school a few years ago. With an ungodly salary. Almost 400k. Her husband is an engineer with a great job. They managed to find a one bedroom apartment they can afford within a decent commute to their respective offices.
> I hope when they eventually move back to the Midwest they aren’t floored by the paltry (in comparison) salaries and remember that it’s not what you make. It’s what you keep.


 Really ?
Are you saying that with an income of approximately $800,000 a year they had a difficult time finding a reasonable apartment? 
25 to 35% of income is generally considered a reasonable about to spend on housing. 
Are they spending $240,000 a year or $20,000 a month on reasonable one bedroom apartment ?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

My uncles barbers plumbers hairdresser shook hands with a rich person once. He was going in the bathroom to wash his hands.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The rich I know tend to wear the best of what they were raised in.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> While this subject will bring up endless "I know a guy..." stories,
> 
> I liken this to people that buy in flood planes, can't buy flood insurance, then complains when they get flooded out...
> 
> ...


Sounds like you've been drinking the koolaid the labor unions pump out.
Union jobs only make up about 10% of the workforce in America and there are good jobs and good opportunities with or without of union membership.

Gripe about the 1% all you want, but if I am going to take a job, I want to work for a rich guy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Fishindude said:


> Sounds like you've been drinking the koolaid the labor unions pump out.
> Union jobs only make up about 10% of the workforce in America and there are good jobs and good opportunities with or without of union membership.
> 
> *Gripe about the 1% all you want, but if I am going to take a job, I want to work for a rich guy.*


me too, your much more likely to get paid!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Fishindude said:


> Sounds like you've been drinking the koolaid the labor unions pump out.
> Union jobs only make up about 10% of the workforce in America and there are good jobs and good opportunities with or without of union membership.
> 
> Gripe about the 1% all you want, but if I am going to take a job, I want to work for a rich guy.


 Perhaps but I suspect that’s mostly because of the labor unions of the past


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Perhaps but I suspect that’s mostly because of the labor unions of the past


Invent a time machine and you can go back. Since we're dealing with the unions of today, what they did in the past is largely irrelevant.

My husband used to work management in a job that voted in the teamsters union about halfway through his time there. Wages and benefits ended up going down (especially for the "good" workers who were getting paid more than the "lazy" workers prior to the union coming in), hours went up, it became easier to fire people, and for all that, they got to pay dues. A lot of people were trying to transfer to shops that hadn't yet voted the union in after a few months with it. 

It's really fascinating when you get to see how it all works instead of clinging to erroneous fantasies that unions still operate the way they used to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Perhaps but I suspect that’s mostly because of the labor unions of the past


Here's the problem I have with labor unions.... I fully agree that everyone has the right to negotiate for wages and benefits. Even in groups. What unions do however goes well beyond that. They deny others the same right! Usually via violent measures. You either work, or move over and let others work if you don't want to.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Fishindude said:


> Gripe about the 1% all you want, but if I am going to take a job, I want to work for a rich guy.


vs applying for a job to work for a poor guy. No thanks.
Take all the wealth from the successful private biznessman and that leaves you what? The government, oh yeah.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Mish said:


> Invent a time machine and you can go back. Since we're dealing with the unions of today, what they did in the past is largely irrelevant.
> 
> My husband used to work management in a job that voted in the teamsters union about halfway through his time there. Wages and benefits ended up going down (especially for the "good" workers who were getting paid more than the "lazy" workers prior to the union coming in), hours went up, it became easier to fire people, and for all that, they got to pay dues. A lot of people were trying to transfer to shops that hadn't yet voted the union in after a few months with it.
> 
> It's really fascinating when you get to see how it all works instead of clinging to erroneous fantasies that unions still operate the way they used to.


How can that be when those are the very things that management complains about?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Here's the problem I have with labor unions.... I fully agree that everyone has the right to negotiate for wages and benefits. Even in groups. What unions do however goes well beyond that. They deny others the same right! Usually via violent measures. You either work, or move over and let others work if you don't want to.


We both know that’s not practical why would management keep anybody on if they can hire somebody for less? So what you’re saying is one person should have the right to ruin everything for everybody


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

You missed your history fellers...

Unions started because of starvation wages, company stores and company 'script' instead of actual money.
No matter how hard you worked, you couldn't get ahead because the company would jack prices up at the only place your 'Script' was good, the company store.

Complain about safety, you got fired.
Get hurt or killed, no compensation and you got fired.
Either you lived in company housing, which you immediately lost when you got hurt or fired, so you were homeless.
The bank was owned by the company, if you owned your own home, get hurt or fired and they called your note, you were homeless again.

Dare to organize and the company would call in armed thugs to bust the union.

There wasn't a 'Middle Class' until unions...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> Invent a time machine and you can go back. Since we're dealing with the unions of today, what they did in the past is largely irrelevant.
> 
> My husband used to work management in a job that voted in the teamsters union about halfway through his time there. Wages and benefits ended up going down (especially for the "good" workers who were getting paid more than the "lazy" workers prior to the union coming in), hours went up, it became easier to fire people, and for all that, they got to pay dues. A lot of people were trying to transfer to shops that hadn't yet voted the union in after a few months with it.
> 
> It's really fascinating when you get to see how it all works instead of clinging to erroneous fantasies that unions still operate the way they used to.


One of my subs went union in January. Was talking to him on Monday and he was pretty upset. They used to get paid riding time by now under union they don't. He might drive 150 miles one way per day. So now he works a 12 hour day and gets paid for 8 because we don't do OT anymore. Before he was working all he wanted and getting riding time. 

He did get a 2 dollar hour raise and his dues are buck fifty an hour so there is that huh?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Mish said:


> Invent a time machine and you can go back. Since we're dealing with the unions of today, what they did in the past is largely irrelevant.


Try to keep up folks. Discussing da modern day unions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So you expect the union to be perfect right out of the gate?


mreynolds said:


> One of my subs went union in January. Was talking to him on Monday and he was pretty upset. They used to get paid riding time by now under union they don't. He might drive 150 miles one way per day. So now he works a 12 hour day and gets paid for 8 because we don't do OT anymore. Before he was working all he wanted and getting riding time.
> 
> He did get a 2 dollar hour raise and his dues are buck fifty an hour so there is that huh?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> One of my subs went union in January. Was talking to him on Monday and he was pretty upset. They used to get paid riding time by now under union they don't. He might drive 150 miles one way per day. So now he works a 12 hour day and gets paid for 8 because we don't do OT anymore. Before he was working all he wanted and getting riding time.
> 
> He did get a 2 dollar hour raise and his dues are buck fifty an hour so there is that huh?


Last union I belonged to forfeited their right to strike under the new contract, lol. 
That was in exchange for a 2% hike.
Talk about taking your teeth out before you eat....


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> You missed your history fellers...
> 
> Unions started because of starvation wages, company stores and company 'script' instead of actual money.
> No matter how hard you worked, you couldn't get ahead because the company would jack prices up at the only place your 'Script' was good, the company store.
> ...


Unions had their place. Some still do in fact have a place. The laws are already in place that they fought for and there is also oversight across the board now. They do nothing now but drain off the workers money and tell them how to vote.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> How can that be when those are the very things that management complains about?


What are the very things that management complains about? I don't understand the question.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> One of my subs went union in January. Was talking to him on Monday and he was pretty upset. They used to get paid riding time by now under union they don't. He might drive 150 miles one way per day. So now he works a 12 hour day and gets paid for 8 because we don't do OT anymore. Before he was working all he wanted and getting riding time.
> 
> He did get a 2 dollar hour raise and his dues are buck fifty an hour so there is that huh?


I lost a couple guys to unions in the past.
They didn't realize until after the fact there was no such term "Merit Increases" in their local's dictionary.
They sort of missed my bonuses.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> So you expect the union to be perfect right out of the gate?


This is an established union that had decades of experience. His company was bought out by a bigger company that was already union. 

Next question?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeepHammer said:


> You missed your history fellers...
> 
> Unions started because of starvation wages, company stores and company 'script' instead of actual money.
> No matter how hard you worked, you couldn't get ahead because the company would jack prices up at the only place your 'Script' was good, the company store.
> ...


Then we had this period of unions and US industrial dominance, and too many look back at that period after WWII, until the early 60s and think the world never changed. This ain't your grandpa's economy no mo.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I 


Mish said:


> What are the very things that management complains about? I don't understand the question.


“Wages and benefits ended up going down (especially for the "good" workers who were getting paid more than the "lazy" workers prior to the union coming in), hours went up, it became easier to fire people, ”


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The cash-plus-housing Supplemental Poverty Measure shows 7.1 million California live below the poverty line. That means 18.2 percent — almost one-in-five — of the state’s 40 million residents are considered poor.

Maybe they should move


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> This is an established union that had decades of experience. His company was bought out by a bigger company that was already union.
> 
> Next question?


 So you put two different company cultures together and want to blame the problems on the union ?
How is that their fault ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> So you put two different company cultures together and want to blame the problems on the union ?
> How is that their fault ?


Is your union going to protect you when trucks drive themselves?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Sure will
What’s your point


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I
> 
> “Wages and benefits ended up going down (especially for the "good" workers who were getting paid more than the "lazy" workers prior to the union coming in), hours went up, it became easier to fire people, ”


Management actually typically wants to keep good workers and get rid of bad ones as good workers will increase the bottom line and bad workers will drag it under. Management typically is willing to pay good workers more than bad workers because you will be more likely to keep them happy and working hard for you rather than going elsewhere and working hard for someone else. The husband's job lost a lot of good workers to other companies who weren't union (or other shops within the company that weren't union) because they get paid a lot more money for working harder if they're not under union contract rules. 

When everyone is paid the same, everyone tends to get more lazy. Good workers start feeling like they're not getting anything for their extra efforts, and bad workers get even worse because they're not getting paid by performance, they're getting paid by the time they put in. Whether that time is spent working or hiding in your truck behind a building eating and playing Candy Crush doesn't matter to them. Routes start going unfinished at the end of the day, and management can't offer overtime to anyone to go finish the route, union rules. Customers start getting unhappy, and if they have a choice, drop the company over one that finishes the routes.

I could go on and on but just think it through logically. Again you're falling for the fallacy that businesses don't care about workers and operate in the same slave-labor situation that existed before labor laws were put in place. It behooves businesses to operate on a merit-based system and they've realized that. Unions are the opposite of merit-based systems and hurt modern business and modern workers, in general.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Mish Where do you think those union rules came from? They didn’t pop up Out of thin air they are most likely the company rules from the previous company ,again it had nothing to do with union it had to do with the company cultures clashing.
Once again you are Blaming the union for the companies mistakes


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> We both know that’s not practical why would management keep anybody on if they can hire somebody for less? So what you’re saying is one person should have the right to ruin everything for everybody


Nope, what I'm saying is nobody has the right to prevent any other feller his right to work if he's happy with the job, ready and willing to work.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Mish Where do you think those union rules came from? I didn’t pop up Out of thin air they are most likely the company rules from the previous company again it had nothing to do with union it had to do with the company cultures clashing.


The union rules I'm specifically talking about were rules the union agreed to when they went into contract negotiations with the company.

The company used to give overtime for unfinished routes before the union came in. The union decided that it was unfair to give some workers extra money to do things the company needed done, and didn't keep the "company culture" of rewarding people who were willing and able to go above and beyond for extra compensation.

Tell me how that helps the workers or the company? It doesn't even help the union, but they had to act like they were doing "something" to make it look like the dues were worth it. Even if the "something" is stupid.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, what I'm saying is nobody has the right to prevent any other feller his right to work if he's happy with the job, ready and willing to work.


 That statement is untrue and should remain so. 
Only in some sort of weird totalitarian government would that be true .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Mish said:


> The union rules I'm specifically talking about were rules the union agreed to when they went into contract negotiations with the company.
> 
> The company used to give overtime for unfinished routes before the union came in. The union decided that it was unfair to give some workers extra money to do things the company needed done, and didn't keep the "company culture" of rewarding people who were willing and able to go above and beyond for extra compensation.
> 
> Tell me how that helps the workers or the company? It doesn't even help the union, but they had to act like they were doing "something" to make it look like the dues were worth it. Even if the "something" is stupid.


I it’s managements fault for agreeing to it.
Is that how it was done at the bigger company?


I got a Telya this just doesn’t make any sense are you sure you clearly understand the situation?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Sure will
> What’s your point


How?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> That statement is untrue and should remain so.
> Only in some sort of weird totalitarian government would that be true .


Why on earth do you think your right to work should exceed mine? Particularly true when you don't even want the job!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why on earth do you think your right to work should exceed mine? Particularly if you don't even want the job!


I never said that do you want to beat the strawman?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I it’s managements fault for agreeing to it.
> Is that how it was done at the bigger company?
> 
> 
> I got a Telya this just doesn’t make any sense are you sure you clearly understand the situation?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

In Canada those who live in coastal communities - especially on the west coast - know that they will be paying a lot more to live there. We call it the sunshine tax. The scenery is spectacular, the weather fantastic, lots of employment and lots of outdoor activities. 

Because everyone wants to live there it drives up the cost of living which is much higher especially for housing. As a result wages are generally higher to allow for people to survive but most have to have two incomes either two partners working or one person with multiple jobs. 

You can buy a lovely older home in the prairies for about $80,000 but a shack in Vancouver will cost anywhere from $500,000 to over a million. It all depends on where you want to live and what you want in your life.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, what I'm saying is nobody has the right to prevent any other feller his right to work if he's happy with the job, ready and willing to work.


If you want to work go ahead and work no one can keep you from working


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I it’s managements fault for agreeing to it.
> Is that how it was done at the bigger company?
> 
> 
> I got a Telya this just doesn’t make any sense are you sure you clearly understand the situation?


Because they knew the union coming in was going to end up being bad for the drivers even though the drivers didn't and probably wanted to get the point across to them as quickly as possible. Letting them shoot themselves in the foot was mentioned by one of the other managers.

The company overall isn't union. It's a nation wide company, so I only know how it works in southern California, but here it's unionized on a location by location basis. The location my husband worked at voted the union in while he was a manager there. Other locations voted down the union or had been union for a long time. Interestingly, the locations that were non-union were always the highest performing shops, and were the coveted shops for people looking for inter-company transfers.

He keeps in touch with one of the other managers (who is now a regional manager) that he used to work with. Apparently the husband's old shop is in the process of trying to get the union out again.

Yes, I clearly understand the situation. I'm all about clearly understanding situations and not trying to make them what I emotionally want them to be. I have no emotional investment in unions or companies, but it feels like you do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I never said that do you want to be the strawman?


I presumed we are talking about someone who is not happy with their job.... To the point of refusing to go to work. Then if another feller walks up, ready, willing and able to do said job... What gives you the right to interfere?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I presumed we are talking about someone who is not happy with their job.... To the point of refusing to go to work. Then if another feller walks up, ready, willing and able to do said job... What gives you the right to interfere?


 Well the first thing I could think of is simply that I don’t feel like hiring him.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> If you want to work go ahead and work no one can keep you from working


Really? A lot of unions will beat me over the head for working!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Really? A lot of unions will beat me over the head for working!


You scab


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I presumed we are talking about someone who is not happy with their job.... To the point of refusing to go to work. Then if another feller walks up, ready, willing and able to do said job... What gives you the right to interfere?


Of course in the context of unions it’s very simple I have negotiated a contract that gave me that right .
As a business owner don’t you think I have the right to decide how I hire and who ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Well the first thing I could think of is simply that I don’t feel like hiring him.


That's fine too, but most employers would like to hire someone, anyone, that can and will do the job.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You scab


Yep. I end up with scabs!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Really? A lot of unions will beat me over the head for working!


I’ve never heard that.
I’ve never heard that. Most would be happy with you working, mow of your yard ,make a big hole in the backyard, bale hat by hand ,they don’t care just don’t come down to their place of employment .


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Of course in the context of unions it’s very simple I have negotiated a contract that gave me that right .
> As a business owner don’t you think I have the right to decide how I hire and who ?


Exactly my point! A business owner should be able to hire anyone he wants.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve never heard that.
> I’ve never heard that. Post be happy with you working now of your yard make a big hole in the backyard, they don’t care just don’t come down to their place of employment .


Ok, translation please?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly my point! A business owner should be able to hire anyone he wants.


 So why do you want to take the right away from him ?
Remember unions don’t just pop up out of nowhere and impose rules the companies negotiate contracts they trade this thing that they don’t care about much for that thing that they want more. 
If one of the things that the company wants is to hire union workers and they put that in the contract who are you to tell the employer who he hast to hire?

Now let’s be clear usually the company wants to hire union workers to you and your workers do not want to work with nonunion workers so the contract provision is usually something to the effect of company A hires union B and company A through the union B.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, translation please?


Work all you want to just don’t do it in a union shop if you’re not union


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> So why do you want to take the right away from him ?
> Remember unions don’t just pop up out of nowhere and impose rules the companies negotiate contracts they trade this thing that they don’t care about much for that thing that they want more.
> If one of the things that the company wants is to hire union workers and they put that in the contract who are you to tell the employer who he hast to hire?
> 
> Now let’s be clear usually the company wants to hire union workers to you and your workers do not want to work with nonunion workers so the contract provision is usually something to the effect of company A hires union B and company A through the union B.


And when said union breaks said contract by refusing to allow these workers to work?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Work all you want to just don’t do it in a union shop if you’re not union


And if the union workers are no longer working... Therefor no longer a union shop?
Does holding a union card somehow give you greater rights to work anywhere?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Not anywhere just some places. 

Remember just because no one is working there doesn’t mean it isn’t a union shop. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> And if the union workers are no longer working... Therefor no longer a union shop?
> Does holding a union card somehow give you greater rights to work anywhere?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

GTX63 said:


>


Iv'e been watching for 5 min waiting for her head to fall over backwards.
Should I keep watching thinking that things will change?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> So you put two different company cultures together and want to blame the problems on the union ?
> How is that their fault ?


Did I say it was the unions fault? 

No, I said they made more money without the union than with it. Maybe this union isn't so good at negotiation of wages. Maybe they take some off the top from the owners. 

It's got to be one or the other because I have always heard that union workers make more money than non union.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Missing the point all the way around...

Unions popped up out of necessity,
Unreasonable work hours, starvation wages, often based on unrealistic production goals, no benefits or even common human services, unsafe or downright dangerous work conditions...

And little has changed,
Owners/'Capitalists' are still willing to mangle/kill workers, expose workers to toxins/poisons/cancer causing and genetic mutating chemicals just to increase the profit margin.

The post WWII idea is out the window, unions formed well before WWII for simple survival before any social security or disability relief was available.

Anyone that...
1. Thinks a 'Time Machine' is available ("Make America Great Again") is automatically disqualified since they can't differentiate between fiction and reality,
And they always refer to the 'Boom' times in America after WWII, which unless there is another world war that destroys most of the industrialized world (like WWII did),
AND,
Leaves American manufacturing & infrastructure completely untouched (not likely),
Then you have to consider the easy, shallow resources like iron ore, copper etc are gone.
Like the shallow, high grade coal, the resources are simply used up, and what's left is deep, low grade and expensive to mine.

The 'Boom' post WWII was America rebuilding the rest of the industrial capacity of Europe & Asia, and they are more than capable of doing their own manufacturing now...
What the history challenged don't understand is we are returning to the natural order of things, minus the easy natural resources...
For instance, China went undeveloped for centuries and now still has natural resources available, and with that availability has the edge in manufacturing.

My grandpa owned several manual labor intensive businesses and complained often that before WWII you paid a guy $1 a day, when they came back you had to pay $1 per hour or they would bring the union in...
In the military they LEARNED (education) what was available, how to stick together, organize, they also learned how to do their jobs MUCH better and became way more productive as a unit rather than a bunch of 'Amateurs' going 20 different directions.

Keep in mind that with the education (like unions used to provide) they came home and built the 'America' you know today.
Water systems, sewage systems, electric & gas grids, the interstate highway systems (which broke the 100 year strangle hold railroads had on the country), but they did it in a 'Boom' time, post WWII when America could run full throttle, 24/7/365 and nothing sat around, any/all 'Excess' production was exported, sold at premium prices to Europe & Asia.

The UNIONS made sure the 'Capitalists Robber Barons' didn't concentrate the wealth/power at the top (like iron/steel, coal/oil, textiles, rail road companies had done, the reason unions started up in the first place) and we had something the world had never seen before... A 'Middle' Economic Class...

Unions provided access to medical services, disability, insurance for disability, widows & orphan funds, retirement/pension plans...
The idea was SO BIG, and so accepted by workers they had a version run through congress, Social Security... Widows & orphans have a roof, eat, see a doctor even if the bread winner gets disabled or killed.

Unions demanded a living wage, paid in actual US currency that could be spent anywhere, reasonable 'Piece' rates or 'Quotas', paid by the hour instead of 'Ton' (moving a ton of rock is a LOT harder than moving a ton of coal), and they demanded safe working conditions, ventilation, overhead supports, simple things like railings so machines didn't process workers as well as materials,
Living wages kept grade school age kids out of industrial jobs so they didn't die, get crippled before puberty...

Now we have big business owning politics, and the entire idea of 'Workman Compensation' or disability has been perverted.
Insurance companies get to decide where you get medical care, and how much care/rehab you get, and those insurance companies are working directly for the big business.
Ask anyone that was seriously injured at work how that goes for them...
Laws limiting how much disability/compensation goes to the injured parties, no matter how much a 'Jury' awards you, if it comes to a jury trial, since most 'Right To Work' laws also throw down 'Arbitration' laws and you can't even see a day in court... And guess who gets to regulate/rule the 'Arbitration'?...

The thing I most liked about working with unions was actual, trained professionals.
It wasn't 'Fast Eddie', the 'Catch-All' guy hired off the street and didn't have the slightest idea of how things need to work.
Someone that doesn't think food 'Magically' arrives in cans, there are steps to the process,
That overhead loads NEED more than a couple ropes and an old bumper jack,
That a 10 AWG wire will NOT conduct 1,000 Amps...

While unions aren't perfect by a long shot, and in the history of mankind are about the equivalent of a year old, you can't change the FACT the 'Middle' Economic Class didn't exist widely before unions, the middle economic class is directly tied to Union membership, and with the decline of unions the middle class also declined.

Unions took the Constitution one step further, from "We The People" to "We The Workers",
You know, the people that actually MAKE everything that global corporations 'Own'...

One last note,
While 'Make America Great Again' and 'Time Machine' guys 'Remember' the 'Good' Old Days', they forget the tax structure in those 'Good Old Days'....
Up to 90% on the super rich 'Investment' (non-earned) income.

If you didn't work for it, earn it, reinvest it in manufacturing/production, you paid a crap load of taxes on it... 
Not the grab everything and horde it away tax structure we have today, bought & paid for by big business owners through law makers...
If the money isn't in circulation, and it's not horded 'Off-Shore', the tax structure collapses or settles on the people at the bottom, AND businesses don't expand, innovate, the standard of living stagnates, or declines for those on the bottom.

Which is EXACTLY what happened when taxes were cut on 'Capital Gains' of unearned income.
The money got horded, collected at the top, the tax base collapsed, settled on the bottom end of income earners, and industrial base shrunk since taking that money 'Off Shore' beat even more taxes.

Since I lived through it, and wasn't drunk/stoned/distracted at the time, I remember ALL of it,
Cutting taxes on the top 1%, the "Trickle Down" economics, the absloute gutting of manufacturing in the US, the switch from a real economy, agricultural & manufacturing, to a false 'Consumer' economy, the flood of money out of the US that hasn't stopped...
The stagnation of manufacturing in the US since everyone could raid reinvestment money and spirit it off shore, taking the US off the gold standard, inflation running away, and the gold that used to back up US currency being leveraged out of the citizens hands into private banks, never to be seen again.
Another natural resource depelated and gone...

You can argue and throw sympathy to the billionaires if you want to, but don't expect me to shed a tear because some 'Poor Rich Guy' DOESN'T have to pay the same tax rate as I do and can't afford his 12th Villa or Estate, $3 million supercar, $50 million yacht, etc.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Missing the point all the way around...
> 
> Unions popped up out of necessity,
> Unreasonable work hours, starvation wages, often based on unrealistic production goals, no benefits or even common human services, unsafe or downright dangerous work conditions...
> ...


No, you are missing the point. If my employer puts me in an unsafe condition all I have to do is call the work force commission. They will come down on them hard and I will get my way. They won't dare fire me because that would make it even worse for them. 

It is because of unions we have this ability. I recognize that. One man/woman can be an army of one. We pay taxes for that ability. So why pay union dues on top of that too?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SRSLADE said:


> Iv'e been watching for 5 min waiting for her head to fall over backwards.
> Should I keep watching thinking that things will change?


Gave me a headache


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> No, you are missing the point. If my employer puts me in an unsafe condition all I have to do is call the work force commission. They will come down on them hard and I will get my way. They won't dare fire me because that would make it even worse for them.
> 
> It is because of unions we have this ability. I recognize that. One man/woman can be an army of one. We pay taxes for that ability. So why pay union dues on top of that too?


Good luck with that idea in right to work states.
You simply get fired, you are an 'At Will' employee, they can fire you at any time...
Your 'Up Side' of being an 'At Will' employee, you get to quit at any time since you didn't sign a contract, and neither did the company.
Moreover, under 'Right To Work' laws, you can't even sue, you have to go into company arbitration...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> Good luck with that idea in right to work states.
> You simply get fired, you are an 'At Will' employee, they can fire you at any time...
> Your 'Up Side' of being an 'At Will' employee, you get to quit at any time since you didn't sign a contract, and neither did the company.
> Moreover, under 'Right To Work' laws, you can't even sue, you have to go into company arbitration...


An employer should have the right to hire and fire, anyone for any reason. It's their money going out. Do they not have any say where or who it goes to?

Oh, and in your previous diatribe above this, I think something went awry with your time machine. Child labor laws as well as social security were in place well before wwII


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

The main issue on all of this generally speaking is that both sides are abusing the situation really bad. Union and socialism are both great ideas, they just seem to go bad over time with all the abuses. 

Union keeps in lazy pain in the rear workers because its so hard to get rid of them. The unions penalize the good workers because it so hard to get extra reward for the extra work they might do. On the other hand the non union places are going to pay the least and get by as economically as they can. The only leverage the workers have are to threaten to bring in the unions, thus getting better wages and benefits. 

Training provided as part of a union program seems to be really well and the employee will have a easier time getting benefits from it. On the job training at a non union shop is often barley adequate and random at best. 

If you have a good boss and / or a good employer all is well with or without a union. Seems the best situation I have seen around here is a little bit of union being present to keep the rest honest. But not enough union to spoil things and put the business into low profit.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Really ?
> Are you saying that with an income of approximately $800,000 a year they had a difficult time finding a reasonable apartment?
> 25 to 35% of income is generally considered a reasonable about to spend on housing.
> Are they spending $240,000 a year or $20,000 a month on reasonable one bedroom apartment ?


Do you even read before you run your mouth? Or do you just imagine facts into existence?
I never said what their combined income is because I don’t know what it is.
But hey. Don’t let that stop you from flapping your lips in incredulity.
I’ll throw you a bone though. I’m giving you the last word because otherwise this unwanted “conversation” with you will never end.
And as I’ve noticed before...you’ve got nothing better to do than keep on going.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Fishindude said:


> Gripe about the 1% all you want, but if I am going to take a job, I want to work for a rich guy.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> me too, your much more likely to get paid!


Everyone has different life experiences.
I've worked for all kinds, some good, some bad.
But on average, I was paid and treated better by the smaller shops run by guys who worked their tails off and weren't exceptionally rich, nor wanted to be.
And the few times I did get ripped off, was by very wealthy men, who I suppose got that way by doing things that way.

However, I don't know that any of us can judge them all in such wide generalities.
The best boss I ever had is *loaded*, but has a heart of gold and you'd never guess his bank account if you didn't know him.
Bless you, John G.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An employer should have the right to hire and fire, anyone for any reason. It's their money going out. Do they not have any say where or who it goes to?


That's an unfortunate and common misinterpretation of the 'right to work' laws, but it's good to show that the atticude still exists.


You can't actually fire an employee for *any* reason, there are just a lot more legal reasons to do it in a right to work state.



> Oh, and in your previous diatribe above this, I think something went awry with your time machine. Child labor laws as well as social security were in place well before wwII


That's true, but you probably would also think the following post is as well...



mreynolds said:


> No, you are missing the point. If my employer puts me in an unsafe condition all I have to do is call the work force commission. They will come down on them hard and I will get my way. They won't dare fire me because that would make it even worse for them.


I used to believe that when I was young and naive, lol.
Then experience made me a wiser man.
IF you're really smart, get 100% irrefutable evidence AND make enough noise to the right people, you MAY get by without losing everything, but it's not as easy as you said.
We used to get tip offs that OSHA was coming to inspect. That day, all "normal" procedures were suspended and we were told what answers to give if asked anything.
I complained about unsafe conditions all the way to the top top, thru proper channels. When I finally went over their heads to the CEO, I got fired, eventually. For unrelated reasons of course, but they did a good job of framing me before it happened, lol.
This wasn't some 2 bit machine shop either.
You've probably heard of them.
*G.E.
*



> It is because of unions we have this ability. I recognize that. One man/woman can be an army of one. We pay taxes for that ability. So why pay union dues on top of that too?


I agree with that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

JeepHammer said:


> Good luck with that idea in right to work states.
> You simply get fired, you are an 'At Will' employee, they can fire you at any time...
> Your 'Up Side' of being an 'At Will' employee, you get to quit at any time since you didn't sign a contract, and neither did the company.
> Moreover, under 'Right To Work' laws, you can't even sue, you have to go into company arbitration...


I like it that way though. 

Why would my employer fire me if I was making him money? I do make him money so he keeps me around. We have a profit sharing here so if someone isn't making money they get weeded out. Not necessarily by just the employer.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> That's an unfortunate and common misinterpretation of the 'right to work' laws, but it's good to show that the atticude still exists.
> 
> 
> You can't actually fire an employee for *any* reason, there are just a lot more legal reasons to do it in a right to work state.
> ...


It's true in Texas. I had a subcontractor file unemployment and he put me down as the last place he worked. I had all the 1099 paperwork and even the W-9 he signed. I still had to prove I was innocent. Took me 6 weeks with their lawyer probing my backside and looking at ALL my other paperwork. 

I'm the end I won but felt violated and didn't do anything wrong. He did get in trouble for filling false state documents but got off with a warning. I didn't even get an apology or a "good job man" for running my business correctly.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I like it that way though.
> 
> Why would my employer fire me if I was making him money? I do make him money so he keeps me around. We have a profit sharing here so if someone isn't making money they get weeded out. Not necessarily by just the employer.


I've asked myself that question many times.
Some people are just strange, that's all I can offer.

The last guy fired me for asking him to honor our pay agreement that he reneged on after 3 months. I stayed another year and a half anyway, continued to turn his shop around into a money maker and hoping he would get a guilty conscience or at least realize I was worth every penny we agreed to when he hired me from another shop.
I'm going back to court in 2 weeks, still trying to get the $20K+ in back pay he owes me.

I'm glad I decided to be self employed after that, the boss man seems pretty reasonable.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> It's true in Texas. I had a subcontractor file unemployment and he put me down as the last place he worked. I had all the 1099 paperwork and even the W-9 he signed. I still had to prove I was innocent. Took me 6 weeks with their lawyer probing my backside and looking at ALL my other paperwork.
> 
> I'm the end I won but felt violated and didn't do anything wrong. He did get in trouble for filling false state documents but got off with a warning. I didn't even get an apology or a "good job man" for running my business correctly.


Sorry to hear that, scammers pop up everywhere.
But that's a far different situation than a discharge for filing an unsafe work condition complaint.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> You can't actually fire an employee for *any* reason, there are just a lot more legal reasons to do it in a right to work state.
> .


Yes you can. You don't even have to give a reason for firing someone. Just a simple, "it was time we parted ways" does it. The employer has to pay unemployment if they don't have a legitimate reason for the firing but they can give any reason or no reason if they don't want to dispute the unemployment.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Do you even read before you run your mouth? Or do you just imagine facts into existence?
> I never said what their combined income is because I don’t know what it is.
> But hey. Don’t let that stop you from flapping your lips in incredulity.
> I’ll throw you a bone though. I’m giving you the last word because otherwise this unwanted “conversation” with you will never end.
> And as I’ve noticed before...you’ve got nothing better to do than keep on going.


It is unusual for a woman to marry a man that makes less than her but being as your description of him seems like he had a pretty good job I don’t think it was out of line to make the assumption of that .yet
Because I don’t know their exact income that’s why I said approximately so to quote you, don’t you even read before you run your mouth?
I might be incorrect ,if you would care to give us more accurate numbers my message could be more accurate to. But even if he didn’t make anything and we have to half the numbers it does seem somewhat strange that there’s nothing available in that price range.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Unions have some unique benefits that regular employment does not have. For instance what employer keeps providing you with benefits when they have no work for you. What group of employers will provide consistent benefits as you move from employer to employer due to lack of work? 
Some unions will help you build a consistent retirement health and medical benefits etc. even though the nature of your work has you changing employers fairly often.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> Yes you can. You don't even have to give a reason for firing someone. Just a simple, "it was time we parted ways" does it. The employer has to pay unemployment if they don't have a legitimate reason for the firing but they can give any reason or no reason if they don't want to dispute the unemployment.



Ok, this is probably gonna be one of those obvious moments, followed by, "Well no, you can't do THAT of course" - but here goes.....

Can ya fire someone cuz they're black ( or pick any race you want and fill in the blank)?
Can ya fire someone for being female (or male or none-of-the -above)?
Handicapped?
How bout Catholic or Protestant, Muslim, Jew or Hindu?
What if I can't stand Puerto Ricans, is that ok?
Sometimes old people get on my nerves, can I get rid of everybody over 60?

You get the picture. 
I've just heard that so many times over the years that it always hits me wrong when I hear it repeated that way.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

As long as you don't SAY that is the reason you are firing a person then yes. Just like you can refuse to hire someone for those same basic reasons, as long as it's not stated then, yes, you can refuse to hire someone for any reason including skin color, age and religion. 

You can refuse to hire Puerto Ricans and state the reason you aren't hiring them is that they are from Puerto Rico. Just as long as you aren't refusing to hire them because they are of a different ethnic or racial background. You can refuse to hire Alaskans, just as long as it's not because of a possibility of an indigenous person history. But God help you if you refuse to hire a Mexican because they can't speak English!

The rub is that the person who was fired/not hired has to _prove_ that the reason was one of the protected ones. They almost have to get it on audio or video to _prove_ that was the reason for whatever. HR people go through extensive training to make sure they say the right words when firing or not hiring a person.

Been there, done that, wasted the money on a lawyer.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> As long as you don't SAY that is the reason you are firing a person then yes. Just like you can refuse to hire someone for those same basic reasons, as long as it's not stated then, yes, you can refuse to hire someone for any reason including skin color, age and religion.


That's true.
I should have said _"legally" _ fire someone for any reason.
You can still do it, but it might cost you some money.
But if it was legal to do so, you could state the real reason instead of making up a false one, right?



> *You can refuse to hire Puerto Ricans and state the reason you aren't hiring them is that they are from Puerto Rico. Just as long as you aren't refusing to hire them because they are of a different ethnic or racial background.* You can refuse to hire Alaskans, just as long as it's not because of a possibility of an indigenous person history. But God help you if you refuse to hire a Mexican because they can't speak English!
> 
> The rub is that the person who was fired/not hired has to _prove_ that the reason was one of the protected ones. They almost have to get it on audio or video to _prove_ that was the reason for whatever. HR people go through extensive training to make sure they say the right words when firing or not hiring a person.
> 
> Been there, done that, wasted the money on a lawyer.


Ya might wanna double check your state laws on that.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4112



> It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
> 
> (A) For any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It is unusual for a woman to marry a man that makes less than her but being as your description of him seems like he had a pretty good job I don’t think it was out of line to make the assumption of that .yet
> Because I don’t know their exact income that’s why I said approximately so to quote you, don’t you even read before you run your mouth?
> I might be incorrect ,if you would care to give us more accurate numbers my message could be more accurate to. But even if he didn’t make anything and we have to half the numbers it does seem somewhat strange that there’s nothing available in that price range.


You could check out apartment rental/house purchase prices on a bunch of different websites.

Also keep in mind that, while a lot of the places listed look pretty good on the inside and the prices are lower, you also have to take into account where the place is. There are some places in the Bay Area you really do not want to live. There are also some places that it'll take you a really long time to get to work even if you're just a few miles away. It takes my son about 45 minutes on the bus to get to where he works about 5 miles away (walking might be faster but the hills you have to walk are insane, plus he says waiting to cross streets makes it about the same walk time as riding the bus).

When my son was looking for a place (in the $2000-$3000/month price range, not including parking which can run you anywhere from another $500-$1000/month - for around a 400-600 sq ft place), some of them were in just terrifying neighborhoods. He almost took one that I talked him out of after he sent me pictures (first time getting a place on his own so he wanted our input) - there was literally a homeless camp with tents and a fire barrel on the sidewalk outside of the front door to the building. 

Granted, he lives and works in downtown San Francisco, but even coming from southern California prices/environment it is a huge adjustment in thinking. Actually my next door neighbor here sold a house in San Francisco about 6 years ago and moved down here - drywall contractor - he was able to buy a house for cash in southern California and retire off what he sold his San Fran house for. Only works a job here or there when he wants a little cash but doesn't want to dip into his principal. 

I believe her, completely. It's crazy up there.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> I've asked myself that question many times.
> Some people are just strange, that's all I can offer.
> 
> The last guy fired me for asking him to honor our pay agreement that he reneged on after 3 months. I stayed another year and a half anyway, continued to turn his shop around into a money maker and hoping he would get a guilty conscience or at least realize I was worth every penny we agreed to when he hired me from another shop.
> ...


With all due respect (and I do respect you very much) you are a better man than me. I would have kicked him to the curb as being unsalvageable. Some people just don't get it. You helped him be "relevant" for far too long. 

But hey, I have made mistakes too and can't change those. It's all a part of growing. My father told me once "Never work for someone dumber than you are." 

It's good advice I have found.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Sorry to hear that, scammers pop up everywhere.
> But that's a far different situation than a discharge for filing an unsafe work condition complaint.


Yeah, those are a lot worse. It doesn't take a union to get that ball rolling anymore. I have never had a major on the job injury but have known those who have. Even when they do things perfect "stuff" happens to good people.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> It is unusual for a woman to marry a man that makes less than her but being as your description of him seems like he had a pretty good job I don’t think it was out of line to make the assumption of that .yet
> Because I don’t know their exact income that’s why I said approximately so to quote you, don’t you even read before you run your mouth?
> I might be incorrect ,if you would care to give us more accurate numbers my message could be more accurate to. But even if he didn’t make anything and we have to half the numbers it does seem somewhat strange that there’s nothing available in that price range.


Word......

Last word that is....( Sorry Lisa)

You are so entertaining. Did you know that 65% of college students were female and have been for the last ten years? That would stand to reason that women will by and large make more money than men will starting...... Now. 

Things are changing these days. Not sure what Lisa's family situation is but in your life you will see more and more women making the big bucks.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Unions have some unique benefits that regular employment does not have. For instance what employer keeps providing you with benefits when they have no work for you. What group of employers will provide consistent benefits as you move from employer to employer due to lack of work?
> Some unions will help you build a consistent retirement health and medical benefits etc. even though the nature of your work has you changing employers fairly often.


My work changes often. I have probably been laid off more than anyone else on this forum. It's a fact of life in construction. I will have choice of a job in less than a week.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I've asked myself that question many times.
> Some people are just strange, that's all I can offer.
> 
> The last guy fired me for asking him to honor our pay agreement that he reneged on after 3 months. I stayed another year and a half anyway, continued to turn his shop around into a money maker and hoping he would get a guilty conscience or at least realize I was worth every penny we agreed to when he hired me from another shop.
> ...


I went with self employment in 1980. Had a good boss even if the pay was crappy!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> Word......
> 
> Last word that is....( Sorry Lisa)
> 
> ...


Yes I know that.
In fact it makes it hard to understand why the feminists claim women only make 65c to the male dollar.
But look at what Lisa said “ her husband is a engineer with a great job”
And engineer with a great job in the bay area usually makes some pretty serious income. 
Was I really that wrong to assume for approximate figures he makes as much as her ?
He might make half he might make twice , even if he works free for a charity my point comes out the same.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> How?


Nope you first.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes I know that.
> In fact it makes it hard to understand why the feminists claim women only make 65c to the male dollar.
> But look at what Lisa said “ her husband is a engineer with a great job”
> And engineer with a great job in the bay area usually makes some pretty serious income.
> ...


She may of overreacted, but you do beat a dead horse beyond recognition


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An employer should have the right to hire and fire, anyone for any reason. It's their money going out. Do they not have any say where or who it goes to?


I totally agree with the statement but what I don’t understand is why you want to take that right away from people.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Nope you first.


They may try

The union has persuaded United States lawmakers to exempt commercial trucks from a bill allowing more autonomous vehicles on the roads. Granted, 3.5 million jobs are at stake. But as Tesla Motors joins Daimler A.G. and others in the big-rig tech race, it’d be smarter to prepare haulers for a career shift.​
But they will fail, can't stop something with such an obvious benefit.

The potential saving to the freight transportation industry is estimated to be $168bn annually. The savings are expected to come from labor ($70bn), fuel efficiency ($35bn), productivity ($27bn) and accidents ($36bn), before including any estimates from non-truck freight modes like air and rail.

It’s regulation, and not technology that stands in the way of eliminating people from behind the wheel. Although trucking companies are likely to lobby hard for the legal reform so they can save on labor, which represents an estimated 34% of operational costs per mile, Morgan Stanley conservatively estimates that the freight industry could save as $168bn annually by harnessing autonomous technology – $70bn of which would come from reducing staff.​


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> She may of overreacted, but you do beat a dead horse beyond recognition


 Yeah I do tend to go on too long.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Carl is no dummy.

Billionaire Carl Icahn is fleeing the Empire State for sunny Florida, which doesn’t tax personal income. He plans to open a new office near Miami in 2020.

The Sunshine State and other income tax-free states are looking more attractive considering the new $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> They may try
> 
> The union has persuaded United States lawmakers to exempt commercial trucks from a bill allowing more autonomous vehicles on the roads. Granted, 3.5 million jobs are at stake. But as Tesla Motors joins Daimler A.G. and others in the big-rig tech race, it’d be smarter to prepare haulers for a career shift.​
> But they will fail, can't stop something with such an obvious benefit.
> ...


 Oh I see what you’re saying now. I’m not a member of that union. 
But what that union should be doing is lobbying the government for retraining assistance.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> With all due respect (and I do respect you very much) you are a better man than me. I would have kicked him to the curb as being unsalvageable. Some people just don't get it. You helped him be "relevant" for far too long.
> 
> But hey, I have made mistakes too and can't change those. It's all a part of growing. My father told me once "Never work for someone dumber than you are."
> 
> It's good advice I have found.


Yeah, I let it go on too long but there were other things happening at the time and I had to play the hand that was dealt me the best I could. Suffice it to say I was caught between a rock and a hard place, and over time, I found out is exactly what had happened to the previous 3 managers he had hired and had left.
If I had known all the things I found out later, I wouldn't have taken the job, but he was very good at it. The first guy fell for it for 5 years. Then of course you have the problem of everybody knowing everyone else in the trade, especially in the owners circle. Being frozen out of surrounding jobs with a phone call is something that is more common that people know.
I left that whole mess behind thank God and wished I'd done it years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I totally agree with the statement but what I don’t understand is why you want to take that right away from people.


I don't want to take anyone's rights from them, not managements not workers. Bosses should have the right to hire anyone, workers should have the right to work for anyone. Unions should not have a right to force anyone to do anything. Sure, negotiate all they want, but not use physical violence as their go to tool.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I dont get it its clear you want to take employers rights to decide away from them but then you say stuff like the above.
workers do not and never will have the right to work for anyone Except in a voluntary way.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I dont get it its clear you want to take employers rights to decide away from them but then you say stuff like the above.
> workers do not and never will have the right to work for anyone Except in a voluntary way.


I've never once suggested taking any employers rights away. That's what unions want to do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Nope not at all
Unions dont take rights away .
They negotiate for the things they want.
Part of having a right is being able to sell or assign it.
When a union negotiates a contract and that includes the employer hiring through the union that is the employer exercising his right to hire who he wants. He assigns it to the union AS IS HIS RIGHT.
Why do you feel entitled to take that away?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, I let it go on too long but there were other things happening at the time and I had to play the hand that was dealt me the best I could. Suffice it to say I was caught between a rock and a hard place, and over time, I found out is exactly what had happened to the previous 3 managers he had hired and had left.
> If I had known all the things I found out later, I wouldn't have taken the job, but he was very good at it. The first guy fell for it for 5 years. Then of course you have the problem of everybody knowing everyone else in the trade, especially in the owners circle. Being frozen out of surrounding jobs with a phone call is something that is more common that people know.
> I left that whole mess behind thank God and wished I'd done it years ago.


Owners aren't going to protect workers rights, and 'At Will' employees don't have a contract,
The employer can SAY anything, but if there isn't a labor contract, anything that happened verbally didn't happen, your word against theirs, and it's the reason no one else is in the room when the promises are made...

With a labor contract, those promises are in writing, and you are on level ground when the agreement is violated.
This is what labor unions did for common workers.
There isn't an upper executive that will work a day without a labor contract, the unions just get a blanket contract for everyone.

As a business owner, I won't do a thing without a signed work order or contract.
As an employer I have contracts with all senior & full time employees, it's the first page in the employee manual, me and the employee signs it and both get a copy with original signatures.
I don't have to, but I post exactly what I pay myself. They KNOW I don't make several thousand times what they do, and we post profit/loss statements every quarter. Easy to do since we have to pay taxes every quarter, we simply post the info.

I personally still distribute profit sharing even though the new tax laws make it VERY attractive to keep it for myself, and it's perfectly legal to do so, I personally don't think it's ethical.
We had a subcontract on a government project, and the profit sharing checks were nearly as much as yearly wages for a couple years, and that was a big hit with them, but I had to make sure they knew it wasn't going to be an every year thing since the project was going to end (and it did).

THEY made the contract possible, worked like dogs not nowing if they would get any in profit sharing, but they did since they make it all possible.
They also seems thrilled with the new equipment, which came out of their pockets in the long run, which made their lives easier, and allowed the shop to get more work keeping them employed...
(The air conditioning was a BIG HIT!)

This isn't worker owned, I own everything but personal tools, but I have good guys and they have it figured out.
It's so nice to work with professionals!!!

What I notice right away,
When someone complains about doing more work than others, they are always the least productive. When someone digs in and keeps working, they get the jobs done, and they don't waste time complaining, sitting around watching others work, etc.
This is a 'Jobber' shop, we make pieces & parts, piece rate is everything since it's what gets us paid.

Some jobs just take more time to make each part, and when we only make a few, you do it the slow way, and the job just takes the time it takes.
Other jobs are less complicated and the production rate is faster,
But the guy complaining is ALWAYS the slowest at everything...
He will be the first to go to break, the last from break, hides out in the toilet, hides out back with the trash, thumbs his phone, etc...
When it comes time for employee review, you better believe the rest of the guys don't hold back! They may have not seen it all, but believe me, THEY NOTICE, and since they are senior, they get a say in who stays and who goes... THEY have to work with the person, so if you don't pull your load, they WILL speak up!

I'm lucky to have guys that don't complain, instead stay busy, get the job done, and often think of ways to speed the process up if we do the job again.
Those guys I keep, they don't complain, they make suggestions, find better ways, always thinking and working, and I don't have to 'Supervise' them, they know their jobs and dive right in.
Again, it's so NICE to work with professionals!

Anyone that made my shop more profitable, smoothed out the kinks, and did exactly what they were supposed to would have raises, bonuses, etc, which is why I don't have turnover... People that make the cut intend to retire here, and best of all, they will find & train replacements for themselves!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Nope not at all
> Unions dont take rights away .
> They negotiate for the things they want.
> Part of having a right is being able to sell or assign it.
> ...


I have no desire to take that away. I've never said that.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no desire to take that away. I've never said that.


No, what you said is you wanted some 'Right' to fire anyone, at any time, for no reason other than you felt like it...
And you 'Wanted' all employees to have that 'Right'...

First off, you would argue with a few members selected by you, to argue with about anything & everything. If they said it's daylight at high noon, you would find a way to argue that some time in history, or someplace in some mineshaft it wasn't 'Daylight' at high noon...

Second, that's not a 'Right', it's a childish 'Want'...
What labor unions gave us, and law adopted is 'Just Cause Termination' laws.
Just because *You* woke up on the wrong side of the bed, bad mood, wife co planning, what ever, you can't fire someone just because they are the first person you see or don't like the way they part their hair...

A guy follows REASONABLE rules, REASONABLE expectations, and gets his job done *Your* bad day doesn't warrant HIS/HER firing.
THEY came to work, *YOU* brought entirely personal problems into the work place, and just cause laws protect them from your petty, tyrannical actions.

*IF* an employer has 'Just Cause', and is professional enough to document these issues, not even a union can save that person...
The union simply gives equal footing for the employee, if you have a case that's documented, the person is gone, if you are just being childish & petty, the union protects the person from YOU.

Third,
When everyone is adult & professional all the way around, no union needed and they wouldn't exist. Since there are people that won't honor contracts, are entirely unreasonable, and are petty tyrants, labor unions do exist.
Since tyrants can't understand they don't own people that work for them, labor unions do exist.

Around here it's the church you belong to.
The 'Good Ole Boy' network is still strong, divided by churches.
The previous poster is correct, a few phone calls and you are blacklisted by any employers from that church.
Let someone find out your views on voting issues (not even political party) and you wind up fired & blacklisted...
If you aren't RABID anti-abortion don't expect employment by any of the local members.
You can't ever mention being neutral, saying the Supreme Court decided, or you just don't care or you will have to leave town to find a reasonable job.

I got rode like a rented mule until I quit because the 'Boss' was the ex-husband of my cousin 25 year before... And he just couldn't let it go.
If he hadn't told me he was the ex-husband I wouldn't have known about it since I was in the military, but that didn't matter to him.
When I quit, the company wanted to know why, and I told them (post employment questionnaire).
He got fired, I got the call to come back, but I was settled in someplace else and running my own side business, and they had their chance... It wasn't like I was the first to complain about the petty tyrant, and I couldn't see working for a company that ignored the issues until people quit...

I'm NEVER going to be that petty as an employer. Period.
I don't care, and it's none of my business if you are an atheist, LBGTQ, disabled, tattooed/face full of metal or just plain 'Weird' as long as you show up, get along and get the job done.
I could care less as long as personal problems/causes stay at home and you bring professionalism, ration & reason to work.
You don't start no crap, there won't be no crap and the work gets done.

One REALLY good business stand point of NOT BEING A BIGOT is the shop makes a profit.
The customers don't need to know their stuff was made by someone they would look down on, they ordered a working product, they get a working product, a 100% money back guarantee of that.
If they only want certain people working on it, that's 'Special Order' and the price automatically doubles, triples, or they get told to take a hike.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Gobblygook...psychobable,,,,,,,,,,...… If I do not like you, you get dasboot. Dude looks shifty to me,...dasboot,,,,,,,


Just a form of big brother involved where they should not be...….


Just remember every time you mandate rights to one group, you take them from another.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no desire to take that away. I've never said that.


 It seems you don’t think there should be closed shops. 
It seems You don’t think unions should be able to decide who gets hired somewhere. 
It seems You think the there should be right to work laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> First off, you would argue with a few members selected by you, to argue with about anything & everything. If they said it's daylight at high noon, you would find a way to argue that some time in history, or someplace in some mineshaft it wasn't 'Daylight' at high noon


It's all one big conspiracy, huh?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A long winded one...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> It seems you don’t think there should be closed shops.
> It seems You don’t think unions should be able to decide who gets hired somewhere.
> It seems You think the there should be right to work laws.


You would be correct on at least two, if not all three counts. The only exception of course is the closed shops. If someone is foolish enough to put themselves in that position, then let the union bankrupt them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> No, what you said is you wanted some 'Right' to fire anyone, at any time, for no reason other than you felt like it...
> And you 'Wanted' all employees to have that 'Right'...
> 
> First off, you would argue with a few members selected by you, to argue with about anything & everything. If they said it's daylight at high noon, you would find a way to argue that some time in history, or someplace in some mineshaft it wasn't 'Daylight' at high noon...
> ...


But then a good Freind of mine couldn't fire a woman he had numerous videos of caught in the act of stealing cash from him. How do I know? When he fire her she sued him for unfair firing and won her case. He not only had to pay her months of lost wages, he had to put her back to work.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You would be correct on at least two, if not all three counts. The only exception of course is the closed shops. If someone is foolish enough to put themselves in that position, then let the union bankrupt them.


Then you don’t believe a employer should have the right to hire who he wants. 
All three are things are a employers right to hire. 
If a employer has the right to decide who he hires he has the right to sell that right. 
Perhaps to a union in return for well trained competent workers ?
Once he sells that right to the union shouldn’t the union be allowed to exercise it just the same as the original owner ?
Since they now own that right why should they have to hire anyone besides union members ?
Isn’t a right to work law really just the government saying you can’t sell your right to hire to one particular kind of people ?
After all in right to work states you can still sell that right to hire ing services or temp worker companies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

That's why I excepted those employers who have waived their right to hire outside the union. Being a fool is not illegal in any state. It's just foolish.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

JeepHammer said:


> Owners aren't going to protect workers rights, and 'At Will' employees don't have a contract,
> The employer can SAY anything, but if there isn't a labor contract, anything that happened verbally didn't happen, your word against theirs, and it's the reason no one else is in the room when the promises are made...
> 
> With a labor contract, those promises are in writing, and you are on level ground when the agreement is violated.
> ...


Well, that's one of the various reasons I referred to in my post, but here's a little detail I found out in my favor that's a foundation to my civil suit.
I mistakenly thought that too because it usually is, but not in South Carolina.
(I know, whoa thunk it?)



> SECTION 41-10-30. Notification to employees of wages and hours agreed upon; recordkeeping requirements; requirement of itemized statement of gross pay and deductions for each pay period.
> 
> (A) Every employer shall notify each employee in writing at the time of hiring of the normal hours and wages agreed upon, the time and place of payment, and the deductions which will be made from the wages, including payments to insurance programs. The employer has the option of giving written notification by posting the terms conspicuously at or near the place of work.
> 
> *Any changes in these terms must be made in writing at least seven calendar days before they become effective. This section does not apply to wage increases.*


The changes made in my wages are documented in my pay stubs. And he has no proof of this 7 day notice to me, cuz it never happened. I'm pretty sure it has to have my signature on it to be valid that it was received.


We'll see in a few weeks, when we meet with the mediator. It's non binding so nothing is final yet. If not, I'm ready to go to court.
$20k is a lot of mula.




> As a business owner, I won't do a thing without a signed work order or contract.
> As an employer I have contracts with all senior & full time employees, it's the first page in the employee manual, me and the employee signs it and both get a copy with original signatures.
> I don't have to, but I post exactly what I pay myself. They KNOW I don't make several thousand times what they do, and we post profit/loss statements every quarter. Easy to do since we have to pay taxes every quarter, we simply post the info.
> 
> ...


Yep, it makes a huge difference when the whole team is professional and works together.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> We'll see in a few weeks, when we meet with the mediator. It's non binding so nothing is final yet. If not, I'm ready to go to court.
> *$20k is a lot of mula*.


Maybe 150 billable hours for an attorney.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Maybe 150 billable hours for an attorney.


LOL.
Yeah that might be what it cost him too.
I'm pro se.
Got my briefs written, transcripts already but I might have some copy fees of a few hundred.


I called half a dozen attorneys when it happened.
They won't touch a wage case unless it's a million dollars or more.
If they DO, you won't see the money because it all goes to legal fees.
There's also another provision in there to allow for treble damages, so it's possible this may be worth $66,000 to me + my expenses.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> Yeah that might be what it cost him too.
> I'm pro se.
> Got my briefs written, transcripts already but I might have some copy fees of a few hundred.


Hopefully you are not outgunned.

Does he have a staff attorney? An attorney on retainer? It will be easy for his attorney to drag it out and cause your attorney to spin his meter.

Why did you not attempt binding arbitration. Much cheaper, and most likely the same result.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Hopefully you are not outgunned.
> 
> Does he have a staff attorney? An attorney on retainer? It will be easy for his attorney to drag it out and cause your attorney to spin his meter.
> 
> Why did you not attempt binding arbitration. Much cheaper, and most likely the same result.


Oh, I'm outgunned all right, but being a little guy all my life, that's nothing new. I kinda like being the underdog. It gives the other side over confidence and allows me a certain advantage that way.
They already tried a motion to dismiss on the statute of limitations, but the judge sided with me. 

We are going to mediation on the 26th, but binding arbitration is an option that's a little risky for me.
A trial is risky too, but I'll wait and see what the mediator's opinion is 1st.
The thing is, one of my disadvantages is I don't know all the players the way the lawyers do. If I enter binding arbitration with the deck stacked in their favor due to a biased "judge" and don't know it, I'm screwed.
Now, I could get a screwed up jury too, but the odds are better with 6 or 12 instead of just one.

BTW, I've researched the judge that I've had so far in this case and she's new and seems pretty fair. Her husband is a defense atty. So I'm gonna play this hand with the cards I have already.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, I'm outgunned all right, but being a little guy all my life, that's nothing new. I kinda like being the underdog. It gives the other side over confidence and allows me a certain advantage that way.
> They already tried a motion to dismiss on the statute of limitations, but the judge sided with me.
> 
> We are going to mediation on the 26th, but binding arbitration is an option that's a little risky for me.
> ...


A jury trial will churn many billable hours.

I strongly suggest binding arbitration. It is usually a very equitable solution. That said, a jury might side with the little guy, if they like your story. I hope you suit includes him paying your legal fees, loss work and punitive damages. Aim high. Make it sting.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's why I excepted those employers who have waived their right to hire outside the union. Being a fool is not illegal in any state. It's just foolish.


So why do you have a problem with any of those rights? They all flow from the same root of the employer selling their right to hire who they want.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, I'm outgunned all right, but being a little guy all my life, that's nothing new. I kinda like being the underdog. It gives the other side over confidence and allows me a certain advantage that way.
> They already tried a motion to dismiss on the statute of limitations, but the judge sided with me.
> 
> We are going to mediation on the 26th, but binding arbitration is an option that's a little risky for me.
> ...


 If you go to court ask to decide the jury instructions Before the jury is seated. 
Study jury selection and allowable objections. 
Do you have the right to fill discovery in a civil case ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> So why do you have a problem with any of those rights? They all flow from the same root of the employer selling their right to hire who they want.


Only if the employer was stupid enough to give his rights away. Not something I would do for sure. It's my business, my money, I'll hire whoever I want from whatever source I want.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

As is your right. 
But yet you object to another employer exercising his ownership of the right by passing it on to a union and the union exercising their ownership of that right by hiring who they want 
How can you justify being on both sides of the fence?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I'm not


AmericanStand said:


> As is your right.
> But yet you object to another employer exercising his ownership of the right by passing it on to a union and the union exercising their ownership of that right by hiring who they want
> How can you justify being on both sides of the fence?


. Any fool has the right to do stupid stuff.... Like handing over his own rights.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> If you go to court ask to decide the jury instructions Before the jury is seated.
> Study jury selection and allowable objections.
> Do you have the right to fill discovery in a civil case ?


Yep.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> A jury trial will churn many billable hours.
> 
> I strongly suggest binding arbitration. It is usually a very equitable solution. That said, a jury might side with the little guy, if they like your story. I hope you suit includes him paying your legal fees, loss work and punitive damages. Aim high. Make it sting.


Yep, already done.
I don't know what his legal bills are so far in this. It's been 2 years and 2 cases. The other is for $6,500 in unemployment that's before the Appellate court right now. Heck, I bet I spent 100 hours on that one alone. Hopefully that one will be resolved soon and I can use it for leverage, otherwise I'm headed to the state Supreme Court.
But they have a cap on what you can charge, I think it's a grand.

Like I said, he's screwed 3 other guys the same way before me, but I hate seeing a guy like that keep doing it. A friend of mine there had to pay out of pocket for his hernia operation because he said he would fire him if he filed worker's comp.
That's illegal too, but he wouldn't fight it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Depends on the car
> 
> Californians love Maserati. Some cities like Beverly Hills, Newport Beach and Malibu are no brainers for exotic car spotting.
> 
> ...


When I traveled for a living I once went to a meeting in L.A. I had rented a Buick Park Avenue at the airport - my idea of luxury at the time - when I got to the meeting it was the cheapest car in the lot.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> That's true.
> I should have said _"legally" _ fire someone for any reason.
> You can still do it, but it might cost you some money.
> But if it was legal to do so, you could state the real reason instead of making up a false one, right?
> ...


So which law would I be breaking by refusing to hire a Puerto Rican? The same ones I would be breaking for refusing to hire an Alaskan?

And apparently you can refuse to hire someone because of their religion;
https://www.10tv.com/article/virginia-woman-sues-says-prayer-break-request-cost-her-job-2019-sep

"CEO Ramses Gavilondo said in an interview that he didn't hire Indorewala because she "wanted to preach her religion." He said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated and found no wrongdoing."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> So which law would I be breaking by refusing to hire a Puerto Rican? The same ones I would be breaking for refusing to hire an Alaskan?


Yes, basing it on national origin.



> And apparently you can refuse to hire someone because of their religion;
> https://www.10tv.com/article/virginia-woman-sues-says-prayer-break-request-cost-her-job-2019-sep
> 
> "CEO Ramses Gavilondo said in an interview that he didn't hire Indorewala because she "wanted to preach her religion." He said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated and found no wrongdoing."


Yep, you _*can*_ do it, whether it's legal or not has yet to be determined.
I couldn't find the EEOC ruling, only this from the plaintiff's lawsuit.



> Administrative History
> 8.
> Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
> (the “EEOC”) on November 28, 2018.
> ...


What I don't know, is the time of day she requested those two 5 minute breaks and whether it interfered with her duties, like being in the middle of a class session.
A "reasonable accommodation" is required but maybe the timing wasn't reasonable according to the EEOC, I don't know.

In one way I was surprised that it wasn't already ruled as discrimination, but in another way I'm not, based on the way I've seen people treated as acceptable.
Some will do whatever they want to others as long as they can get away with it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *Some* will do whatever they want to others as long as they can get away with it.


Yes, they most certainly will.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, basing it on national origin.


If you hire other Americans you are not discriminating based on national origin. Puerto Ricans are Americans, just like Alaskans, just like people from DC.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> If you hire other Americans you are not discriminating based on national origin. Puerto Ricans are Americans, just like Alaskans, just like people from DC.


From post #115.



> *4112.02 Unlawful discriminatory practices.*
> It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
> (A) For any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or *ancestry of any person, *to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.


I'm sure that hair has been split before with 2nd and 3rd generation Americans, which is why they probably included 'ancestry' as well in your state's statute.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

And that is where the issue lies. The person would have to prove the ancestry claim. If an employer refuses employment to all Puerto Ricans, including white people that were born in the continental US but are currently living in Puerto Rico, the potential employee wouldn't have a chance. And some depends on your definition of Puerto Rican. All people who live there or people who were born there then moved somewhere else? If you toss applications from people that list an address in Puerto Rico, no problem. That actually is very legal. But if you get far enough that you do a background check then find the person was born in Puerto Rico but lives in the state where the job is located, that is a different story.

Substitute another state for Puerto Rico and it's the same result.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A person may not be discriminated against based on certain characteristics:


Age;
Race; 
National Origin;
Religious Beliefs;
Gender ;
Disability;
Pregnancy; and
Veteran Status.
The alphabet people want to add to that list


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

It is legal to refuse to hire a person based on where they currently live. Most local government offices and federal employers do not hire people outside of their limited radius.

The one that gets to me is that you cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman. I can see needing the protection if the pregnancy is still in the early stages or the job is not physically demanding. But to refuse to hire a ready to pop mom to be for a job that is physically demanding should be allowed. I know I will catch a lot of flack for that one but I was expected to do a job that a very pregnant woman was hired to do, as well as my own job. She was physically unable to do the job because of her pregnancy, there would have been no reasonable accommodation except to have someone else do the job. So she got paid for sitting on her laurels doing nothing and other people had to perform her job.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But then a good Freind of mine couldn't fire a woman he had numerous videos of caught in the act of stealing cash from him. How do I know? When he fire her she sued him for unfair firing and won her case. He not only had to pay her months of lost wages, he had to put her back to work.


You brought in a 'Horror Story' prove it or it didn't happen.
Simply document what you are bringing up as 'Evidence' to support your viewpoint.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeepHammer said:


> You brought in a 'Horror Story' prove it or it didn't happen.
> Simply document what you are bringing up as 'Evidence' to support your viewpoint.


It happened. Nuff said.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cities with more than a half million people collectively lost almost 27,000 residents age 25 to 39 in 2018, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the figures. It was the fourth consecutive year that big cities saw this population of young adults shrink. New York, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Washington and Portland, Ore., were among those that lost large numbers of residents in this age group.

The drop in young urban residents last year was smaller than in 2017, when big cities lost nearly 54,000 residents in this age group. But the sustained declines signal a sharp reversal from the beginning of the decade, when young adults flooded into cities and helped lead an urban revival.

New York lost almost 38,000 people age 25 to 39 last year, a decline that was roughly twice the size that it experienced each of the previous three years. That drop coincided with the city’s first overall population decline in more than a decade in 2018.

Among the big cities that gained large numbers of young adults were Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Austin, Seattle, Denver and Columbus.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/millennials-continue-to-leave-big-cities-11569470460


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

So where are all these young people going and why?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Miss Kay said:


> So where are all these young people going and why?


The article says other less expensive cities and the suburbs.

They go for cheaper housing and better schools.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Around Columbus many are moving to more expensive suburbs, houses are more expensive but they have yards and close parks, more open space. I've seen the building being done and looked at prices in the paper. 
This article focuses on New Albany;
https://www.lawnstarter.com/columbus-oh-lawn-care/columbus-fastest-growing-suburbs


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Miss Kay said:


> So where are all these young people going and why?


Onto 5 acres parcel in tract homes across the street from you next to you and behind you, figuratively speaking.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Onto 5 acres parcel in tract homes across the street from you next to you and behind you, figuratively speaking.


Them's some well to do young folks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> You brought in a 'Horror Story' prove it or it didn't happen.
> Simply *document what you are bringing up* as 'Evidence' to support your viewpoint.


Shouldn't that apply to everyone equally?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You know, I keep saying that.

(Thump Thump)
Is this mic on?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Miss Kay said:


> So where are all these young people going and why?


I know in the San Diego area we have a ton of people moving here from the Bay Area. If you're young and just starting out, it's a heck of a lot cheaper here and salaries are competitive. Older people can sell up and either buy a house outright here or downsize a lot cheaper and still live the California lifestyle if that's what they're into.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Cities with more than a half million people collectively lost almost 27,000 residents age 25 to 39 in 2018, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the figures. It was the fourth consecutive year that big cities saw this population of young adults shrink. New York, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Washington and Portland, Ore., were among those that lost large numbers of residents in this age group.
> 
> The drop in young urban residents last year was smaller than in 2017, when big cities lost nearly 54,000 residents in this age group. But the sustained declines signal a sharp reversal from the beginning of the decade, when young adults flooded into cities and helped lead an urban revival.
> 
> ...


It *Might* not be so mysterious when you consider the age (25-39) and the current economic environment...

It *Might' be the age group is simply growing up and getting out of the expensive mega cities that provide night life/partying when they grow out of it,
And the economy is allowing more of them to find jobs and settle down elsewhere.

The mega cities don't have much to offer when you are looking to settle down, buy a place and raise a family unless you have a mega-trust fund somewhere.

Also the older you get, the less you want weather extremes in general...

Just a theory of contributing factors since the article didn't cover income demographics.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Miss Kay said:


> So where are all these young people going and why?


It's a fact that child bearing people have moved to safer areas once they have had children. It's always been that way.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I was just wondering if they were going to cheaper cities or if a big percent were moving to rural areas. Nope, I doubt it. No new people ever show up here!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Miss Kay said:


> I was just wondering if they were going to cheaper cities or if a big percent were moving to rural areas. Nope, I doubt it. No new people ever show up here!


You did


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

But I was born and raised here. No one comes through here unless they are from here and most leave once they are out of school.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Miss Kay said:


> So where are all these young people going and why?


According to the article they are moving to better pastures in the southwest. Prolly due to the availability of biscuits n gravy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> According to the article they are moving to better pastures in the southwest. Prolly due to the availability of biscuits n gravy.


I stopped at a small diner in the middle of nowhere Iowa. This was maybe 20 years ago. Ordered biscuits and gravy. They did not know what it was. That did have toast.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I stopped at a small diner in the middle of nowhere Iowa. This was maybe 20 years ago. Ordered biscuits and gravy. They did not know what it was. That did have toast.


In 85 I road my motorcycle to Maine to get a lobster dinner, once I got north of Virginia biscuits n gravy wasn't part of the language! Thought I was going to starve on that trip! The lobster was good btw.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In 85 I road my motorcycle to Maine to get a lobster dinner, once I got north of Virginia biscuits n gravy wasn't part of the language! Thought I was going to starve on that trip! The lobster was good btw.


Neither is chicken fried steak. I had to wait 6 months to get one when I was working up there. Back then Iced tea was a no no also. I asked for tea once and I got hot tea. I asked them if they hade iced tea and he turned his nose up and said "we don't have iced tea here." I asked him if he had ice and when he said yes I told him to go put some ice in this hot tea then. 

I didn't drink it though because I was afraid he spit in it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Neither is chicken fried steak. I had to wait 6 months to get one when I was working up there. Back then Iced tea was a no no also. I asked for tea once and I got hot tea. I asked them if they hade iced tea and he turned his nose up and said "we don't have iced tea here." I asked him if he had ice and when he said yes I told him to go put some ice in this hot tea then.
> 
> I didn't drink it though because I was afraid he spit in it.


I honestly don't see how those folks survive! But, like my Grampa always said "it takes all kinda folks to make the world go round".


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

And grits. I've ordered grits before and the waitress asked "what"! I told her if she doesn't know what they are, they sure as heck don't have them


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Miss Kay said:


> No new people ever show up here!


I prefer it that way.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Miss Kay said:


> And grits. I've ordered grits before and the waitress asked "what"! I told her if she doesn't know what they are, they sure as heck don't have them


Now THAT would be a reason to move.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I haven't found anywhere out here than can make proper biscuits and gravy. Most places it's worse than that package stuff.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Mish said:


> I haven't found anywhere out here than can make proper biscuits and gravy. Most places it's worse than that package stuff.


I make my own normally. We have several local "greasy spoons" locally that make a good biscuit and decent gravy. When traveling it's the lil mom n pop joints I look for, the chain outfits don't grasp the basic concept of "fresh" biscuits or real home made gravy. Gravy don't come in a box!


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I make my own normally. We have several local "greasy spoons" locally that make a good biscuit and decent gravy. When traveling it's the lil mom n pop joints I look for, the chain outfits don't grasp the basic concept of "fresh" biscuits or real home made gravy. Gravy don't come in a box!


I do too. Just sometimes while out we go for breakfast I've been on the search for somewhere that can actually make decent biscuits and gravy around here. Apparently it doesn't exist. Getting to the point where I'm almost afraid to try anymore, I've had some really disgusting breakfasts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Mish said:


> I do too. Just sometimes while out we go for breakfast I've been on the search for somewhere that can actually make decent biscuits and gravy around here. Apparently it doesn't exist. Getting to the point where I'm almost afraid to try anymore, I've had some really disgusting breakfasts.


Yup, it was that way when I lived in so cal too. That was back in the 70s. What's so hard about gravy!?? Lil grease, lil good sausage, lil flour, pocketful of milk.... Stir! Sheesh lil kids can do it!


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yup, it was that way when I lived in so cal too. That was back in the 70s. What's so hard about gravy!?? Lil grease, lil good sausage, lil flour, pocketful of milk.... Stir! Sheesh lil kids can do it!


Well, see, apparently you need really watery gravy with no salt or pepper, and maybe one piece of sausage because all that stuff is bad for you. And your biscuits need to be hockey puck consistency for best digestion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Mish said:


> Well, see, apparently you need really watery gravy with no salt or pepper, and maybe one piece of sausage because all that stuff is bad for you. And your biscuits need to be hockey puck consistency for best digestion.


Ok, it's like a quarter after one in the morning..... Headed for the kitchen now! Gonna have me some real gravy! LOL


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol I ate at a chain restaurant called VIPs in Kennewick Wa for a month. 
I ordered biscuits and gravy every night for a month and never got the same thing twice. 
I came close to good b&g a couple of time but no cigar


----------

