   Contact Kelli, temporary manager of Doug's "The Wondering Jew" |
Mar. 01, 2005 - 20:57 MST THE WONDERING JEW What're The Odds ? For something like this it would seem that it should be on the front page. Smacks of downplaying things that this article should be buried in the middle of the paper this morning. By Bill Scanlon of the Rocky Mountain News, in full: Locked-out workers win with house bill "Workers locked out by their bosses would be eligible for unemployment checks under a bill that won initial approval in the House on Monday." "Pro-business lawmakers slammed the bil, sayint it encourages workers to disrupt the workplace, forcing employers to impose a lock-out. "This will create a more hostile relationship in negotiations," said Rep. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs" "But bill sponsor Rep. Mike Cerbo, D-Denver, said it protects a worker who wants to work but isn't allowed to by the company." "He said it's a balanced bill because it doesn't allow workers who strike and then ask for their job back to draw unemployment if their bosses refuse." "In contract negotiations, workers sometimes strike or threated to do so. Employers sometimes counter that with a threat of a lockout/ Sometimes the lockout is consdered "defensive" -- the workers backed the boss into a corner. Sometimes it is considered offensive -- the compoany is trying to get leverage." "King said the bill would turn the intent of unemplopyment compensation on its head. A lockoutisn't often one-sided but usually happens when both sides are entrenched, he said. "This gives union employees a right to further hurt the business," he said." "Cerbo said Colorado law from 1935 to 1963 gave workers the right to collect unemployment if their bosses locked them out, and "everybody was happy." "After h is colleagues n arroly approved h is bill, he said he's confident that tif the bill becomes a l aw, workers won't abuse the privilege. "Nobody's gotten rich on unemployment. It just gets you by," he said." "But Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, said the bill will encourage troublemakers to FORCE the company into a defensive lockout and ?reward? with a monthly check "employees who disrupt the workplace." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opinions on a complex thing, probably not worth much, but mine anyway. For the most part, people go to work, work their job peaceably -- that is if their employers give them a decent break. Decent hours, working conditions, wages, job security and freedom from harassment. And the workers do their jobs and go home tired but content. For the most part that is. Trouble makers among such a group of employees don't get much attention paid to them. On the other hand, if the employees are not being treated fairly in all respects trouble will brewing. It does make me laugh when I read the bit where the employer does a lockout and calls it defensive. "It hurts his business to stay open." So he is making good profit by locking the employees, who do the work, OUT. Drawing it out to a ridiculous extreme, the group of bosses efficiently do the work employees once did. The few doing the work of many, and inexperienced bosses handling the work deftly. Oh sure, there will be a few bosses who came up through the ranks and know the work, but even so I see no way that a company can keep running profitably when their employees are locked out. I remember the last factory I worked in. We were constantly informed that we were "members of the team" part of "one big happy family" sent to seminars on teamwork and even once to a "Camp" on company grounds wherein the bosses and peons worked together to solve problems ahead of other teams. We found that our bosses were human and could be nice given the chance, and they found intelligence in us and cooperation. After the camp when work resumed the next day it was obvious to us that it was the same old stuff and the stars in our eyes flickered out. Not too long after that contract negotiation neared and the poop from above put all us employess down terribly, inferred that we were every kind of slacker, thief and troublemaker in the whole wide world. No longer were we considered to be "members of the team," "one of the family," and some bosses had the attitude that we weren't human. All very carefully done of course so the company couldn't be sued, but the pressure was on for them to shake our confidence and make us willing to settle for less. A paragraph citing pro-business lawmakers, "slammed the bill saying it encourages workers to disrupt the workplace," Most of the time disruption occurs is when employees are not being treated fairly and the main group gets into the act, not just a few "troublemakers." Shows to me the typical attitude of employer bosses. Indicates to me their fear of not being able to enforce an unequal status-quo. Colorado law from 1935 to 1963 gave workers the right to collect unemployment if their bosses locked them out. And I wonder just who, which group of impoverished employers in 1963 got that dismantled ? Mr. Cerbo's remark makes a point that employers try to gloss over, he said, "Nobody's gotten rich on unemployment. It just gets you by." And he is right If you are lucky it just barely gets you by. So there is a bill up, wonder if it will be paid ? Will it go through ? Hee, hee, hee What're The Odds ? . . . . . . . . . . . 0 comments so far
|
|
|
