3 ms·

Time for an anti-American rant. You buy premium healthcare but still need to pay the doctor ? You don't have unemployment aids ? You can get fired for talking

by Iv 15y ago

Time for an anti-American rant. You buy premium healthcare but still need to pay the doctor ? You don't have unemployment aids ? You can get fired for talking to a union guy ? (if that happens to you in France, that is your way to wealth through court action)

smoyer 15y ago
C'est la vie ... curiously, I have no desire to move from the U.S. to France but I'm glad you're happy where you're living. We all should be or we should move!
CWuestefeld 15y ago
You should probably do some research before ranting. You buy premium healthcare but still need to pay the doctor? That obviously depends on the provisions of the healthcare contract. It's common to pay a deductible and/or token co-pay. But these plans can always be tailored to address the needs of the buyer, and of the provider. (I might rant about the problems with enforcing a one-size-fits-all plan.) You don't have unemployment aids? Yes, we do. There is unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, disability insurance, and so on, to provide a safety net. You can get fired for talking to a union guy? No, you cannot (labor regulation in America is absurdly skewed in favor of the workers). The employer is forbidden from interfering with any labor attempt to organize. However, our Democrats have been attempting to pass a regulations called "card check" [1] which would take away the workers' right to secret ballots when voting for unionization. (And the Democrats are supposed to be the ones standing up for the little guy?!?) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
- runako 15y ago
  >> You buy premium healthcare but still need to pay the doctor? Yes. That's the short answer. The longer answer is that there are plans without co-pays, etc., but that they are to the best of my knowledge not available to purchase by individuals or far too expensive for our hypothetical $9/hr worker (think more like $1000/mo). >> token co-pay In the context of a $9/hr job, "token" co-pays probably shouldn't be called "token," when they can easily run over $40 for a single visit. I certainly don't consider 4+ hours of my compensation to be a token amount. >> You can get fired for talking to a union guy? The short answer is yes, you can be fired for talking to a union guy. As in your employer will not be stopped from firing you on the spot, and it's then your turn to try to get reinstated/compensated through legal channels. You're right that legally you can't be fired for organizing. But in the calculus of business and the working poor, it's actually fairly common for low-wage employees to be fired for attempts at organizing. The employer wagers (usually correctly) that the person who just lost his $9/hr job today will have more immediate priorities than finding an attorney he can't pay to take a case he'll probably lose due to being able to only secure the services of one lawyer and not a team of the best money can buy.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    As in your employer will not be stopped from firing you on the spot Are you suggesting that the French have found some way of physically preventing this improper action from ever occurring? I'd have to guess that the French are just as vulnerable to such misbehavior.
    - runako 15y ago
      I don't see such a suggestion in my post. I'm not knowledgeable about the French labor system, so I won't rebut your guess with speculation of my own. I was simply pointing out that labor law isn't always as useful for day-to-day offenses as the well-off often assume.
    - scarmig 15y ago
      The question is of enforcement and incentives. Ask people who are involved in this issue, one way or another. Employer, worker, or organizer in France versus the USA. No matter their ideology, they will agree that management has far more freedom of action and employees have far less protections in the USA.
    - Iv 15y ago
      I am not sure what you are implying and feel I am missing something but no, in France you cannot fire an employee without a professional fault from the employee's part. And "professional faults" are fairly well defined, and being part of a union is explicitly not one of them.
- _delirium 15y ago
  > But these plans can always be tailored to address the needs of the buyer, and of the provider. Unfortunately, as any startup who's tried to buy health insurance can attest, this isn't really true if "the buyer" isn't a giant corporation. If you're an individual or 5-person business, the market is completely broken. The main problem is that insurance only really works if you can effectively pool risks, and health insurance is difficult to pool risks in unless it's mandatory in some manner. A large employer agreeing to sign up every employee with no opt-out is the only real way to create a mandatory-coverage pool that seems to consistently work in the U.S.
- scarmig 15y ago
  You are deeply misinformed about labor legislation. The employer can and does interfere regularly with labor attempts to organize. Tens of millions of dollars are spent every year by businesses hiring labor consultants known affectionately as "union busters" who spend their time and efforts intimidating employees. Talking to a union organizer can and does get you fired. Particularly workers who are passionate supporters of unionization. Even the laws that do exist are rarely enforced, and even when they are the penalties are minimal. Employers figure it's cheaper to pay a couple thousand dollars in fines after they've won an election than it is to not break the law and lose it. Labor regulation is massively skewed toward the employer compared to any other developed country. Unless you think that any labor regulation at all is an encroachment on the employers' rights. Full disclosure: I've spent some time labor organizing and have been physically assaulted by management for talking to employees in the parking lot, so I'm a bit biased.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    scarmig, not that I disbelieve you, but can you provide citations to help me understand when and how often this occurs? Labor regulation is massively skewed toward the employer compared to any other developed country. I'm not interested in comparisons to other countries. My interest is in both sides playing on a level field. When, for example, the government is trying to prosecute Boeing for simply deciding to open a new plant in a non-union state so that it won't have to deal with the union [1], it's clear that the playing field is slanted. I'm not asking for businesses to have an upper hand, just that the situation be handled with as much fairness as possible. labor consultants known affectionately as "union busters" who spend their time and efforts intimidating employees. I've never encountered such a thing. My understanding is that this kind of thing disappeared decades ago (although these days I don't tend to work near unionized people, so may have missed something). But: how can you explain the insistence on the particulars of "card check", other than that the unions want to be able to intimidate workers into signing up (which they'd be able to do, since their votes wouldn't be secret)? Disclosure(s): I've had my parents tell me that we won't have very much to eat for a while, because my step-father is being forced to go out on a strike that he voted against. I've been forced to pay union dues myself, even though (as a temporary employee) I wasn't entitled to union benefits or representation. I've been forbidden from helping customers by a simple 1-minute effort, because only union workers are allowed to do that task (although the union workers were not doing their duty by performing that task). My employer had union protesters [2] fake a picketer being hit by a bus, those picketers claiming that justified their attacking the bus with bats and pipes. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/boeing-should-move-2nd-787-line-to-washington-u-s-board-says.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/boeing-should-move-... [2] The protest was simply that one of the building contractors my employer was using for a renovation was not a union shop; there was no concrete grievance. And the bus that was attacked was carrying the non-union workers to keep them safe from the union animals.

by Iv 15y ago

smoyer 15y ago

C'est la vie ... curiously, I have no desire to move from the U.S. to France but I'm glad you're happy where you're living. We all should be or we should move!

CWuestefeld 15y ago

You should probably do some research before ranting. You buy premium healthcare but still need to pay the doctor? That obviously depends on the provisions of the healthcare contract. It's common to pay a deductible and/or token co-pay. But these plans can always be tailored to address the needs of the buyer, and of the provider. (I might rant about the problems with enforcing a one-size-fits-all plan.) You don't have unemployment aids? Yes, we do. There is unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, disability insurance, and so on, to provide a safety net. You can get fired for talking to a union guy? No, you cannot (labor regulation in America is absurdly skewed in favor of the workers). The employer is forbidden from interfering with any labor attempt to organize. However, our Democrats have been attempting to pass a regulations called "card check" [1] which would take away the workers' right to secret ballots when voting for unionization. (And the Democrats are supposed to be the ones standing up for the little guy?!?) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

runako 15y ago
>> You buy premium healthcare but still need to pay the doctor? Yes. That's the short answer. The longer answer is that there are plans without co-pays, etc., but that they are to the best of my knowledge not available to purchase by individuals or far too expensive for our hypothetical $9/hr worker (think more like $1000/mo). >> token co-pay In the context of a $9/hr job, "token" co-pays probably shouldn't be called "token," when they can easily run over $40 for a single visit. I certainly don't consider 4+ hours of my compensation to be a token amount. >> You can get fired for talking to a union guy? The short answer is yes, you can be fired for talking to a union guy. As in your employer will not be stopped from firing you on the spot, and it's then your turn to try to get reinstated/compensated through legal channels. You're right that legally you can't be fired for organizing. But in the calculus of business and the working poor, it's actually fairly common for low-wage employees to be fired for attempts at organizing. The employer wagers (usually correctly) that the person who just lost his $9/hr job today will have more immediate priorities than finding an attorney he can't pay to take a case he'll probably lose due to being able to only secure the services of one lawyer and not a team of the best money can buy.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  As in your employer will not be stopped from firing you on the spot Are you suggesting that the French have found some way of physically preventing this improper action from ever occurring? I'd have to guess that the French are just as vulnerable to such misbehavior.
  - runako 15y ago
    I don't see such a suggestion in my post. I'm not knowledgeable about the French labor system, so I won't rebut your guess with speculation of my own. I was simply pointing out that labor law isn't always as useful for day-to-day offenses as the well-off often assume.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    The question is of enforcement and incentives. Ask people who are involved in this issue, one way or another. Employer, worker, or organizer in France versus the USA. No matter their ideology, they will agree that management has far more freedom of action and employees have far less protections in the USA.
  - Iv 15y ago
    I am not sure what you are implying and feel I am missing something but no, in France you cannot fire an employee without a professional fault from the employee's part. And "professional faults" are fairly well defined, and being part of a union is explicitly not one of them.
_delirium 15y ago
> But these plans can always be tailored to address the needs of the buyer, and of the provider. Unfortunately, as any startup who's tried to buy health insurance can attest, this isn't really true if "the buyer" isn't a giant corporation. If you're an individual or 5-person business, the market is completely broken. The main problem is that insurance only really works if you can effectively pool risks, and health insurance is difficult to pool risks in unless it's mandatory in some manner. A large employer agreeing to sign up every employee with no opt-out is the only real way to create a mandatory-coverage pool that seems to consistently work in the U.S.
scarmig 15y ago
You are deeply misinformed about labor legislation. The employer can and does interfere regularly with labor attempts to organize. Tens of millions of dollars are spent every year by businesses hiring labor consultants known affectionately as "union busters" who spend their time and efforts intimidating employees. Talking to a union organizer can and does get you fired. Particularly workers who are passionate supporters of unionization. Even the laws that do exist are rarely enforced, and even when they are the penalties are minimal. Employers figure it's cheaper to pay a couple thousand dollars in fines after they've won an election than it is to not break the law and lose it. Labor regulation is massively skewed toward the employer compared to any other developed country. Unless you think that any labor regulation at all is an encroachment on the employers' rights. Full disclosure: I've spent some time labor organizing and have been physically assaulted by management for talking to employees in the parking lot, so I'm a bit biased.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  scarmig, not that I disbelieve you, but can you provide citations to help me understand when and how often this occurs? Labor regulation is massively skewed toward the employer compared to any other developed country. I'm not interested in comparisons to other countries. My interest is in both sides playing on a level field. When, for example, the government is trying to prosecute Boeing for simply deciding to open a new plant in a non-union state so that it won't have to deal with the union [1], it's clear that the playing field is slanted. I'm not asking for businesses to have an upper hand, just that the situation be handled with as much fairness as possible. labor consultants known affectionately as "union busters" who spend their time and efforts intimidating employees. I've never encountered such a thing. My understanding is that this kind of thing disappeared decades ago (although these days I don't tend to work near unionized people, so may have missed something). But: how can you explain the insistence on the particulars of "card check", other than that the unions want to be able to intimidate workers into signing up (which they'd be able to do, since their votes wouldn't be secret)? Disclosure(s): I've had my parents tell me that we won't have very much to eat for a while, because my step-father is being forced to go out on a strike that he voted against. I've been forced to pay union dues myself, even though (as a temporary employee) I wasn't entitled to union benefits or representation. I've been forbidden from helping customers by a simple 1-minute effort, because only union workers are allowed to do that task (although the union workers were not doing their duty by performing that task). My employer had union protesters [2] fake a picketer being hit by a bus, those picketers claiming that justified their attacking the bus with bats and pipes. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/boeing-should-move-2nd-787-line-to-washington-u-s-board-says.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/boeing-should-move-... [2] The protest was simply that one of the building contractors my employer was using for a renovation was not a union shop; there was no concrete grievance. And the bus that was attacked was carrying the non-union workers to keep them safe from the union animals.