what good is joining the Unions

[smiling]

anyone knows what good is joining the unions besides the year end dinner and dance, some outing and annual gift ?

I see the people that benefit most from the unions are the office bearers / committee members

look at NTUC - the committee members / central committee go on endless overseas trips - and it doesn't provide any benefits or improvements to the members or the unions

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Sinkieland got no labour union.

 

[Leongsam]

anyone knows what good is joining the unions besides the year end dinner and dance, some outing and annual gift ?

I see the people that benefit most from the unions are the office bearers / committee members

look at NTUC - the committee members / central committee go on endless overseas trips - and it doesn't provide any benefits or improvements to the members or the unions

You should join a Union so that you can become a committee member and go on endless overseas trips.

 

[Poomer]

Our unions are a sham. It's just another tool wielded by the PAP to control the Singaporean people. They do not fight for better pay for the workers, they do not fight for better conditions for workers, they do not fight for more laws to protect workers, they do not protect Singaporean jobs. Sure, they will disagree and proudly show what they have done, like a $50 pay rise for security guards after more than a decade of stagnating pay. Or show how they have helped retrenched workers get compensation when the companies refused to pay out, when in the first place they should have lobbied for stronger labour laws to prevent such loopholes from forming. NTUC is led by a minister, yet it seems that the minister is more interested in serving the government's interests than helping the workers. The only thing they are good at is running insurance companies and supermarkets.

I'm gonna repeat this again...

 

[Leongsam]

I'm gonna repeat this again...

Your message is hardly earth shattering. It's the same old left wing liberal shit that has been repeated ad nauseam for the last hundred years by those who believe that business owners and governments owe workers a living.

When a business owner goes bust, he takes the bitter pill and regroups to fight another day. Nobody is there to "compensate" his losses.

However, when a worker loses his job, you expect taxpayers to provide a soft landing and "compensation"??? Where is the logic?

If everyone learned to stand on their own two feet, the world would be a much better place.

 

[rushifa666]

you talk as if you're some big corporate boss. Protests are not even legal here. There is no power that the little man has other than unions. Thats just common sense. If you cannot make it as a business man go be a worker and get stomped on

 

[Jlokta]

If everyone learned to stand on their own two feet, the world would be a much better place.

Please tell that to the 超级白。

 

[Poomer]

Your message is hardly earth shattering. It's the same old left wing liberal shit that has been repeated ad nauseam for the last hundred years by those who believe that business owners and governments owe workers a living.

When a business owner goes bust, he takes the bitter pill and regroups to fight another day. Nobody is there to "compensate" his losses.

However, when a worker loses his job, you expect taxpayers to provide a soft landing and "compensation"??? Where is the logic?

If everyone learned to stand on their own two feet, the world would be a much better place.

Singapore hasn't been around for even 50 years. If you are inferring about the left-wing in foreign countries. Do note most countries out there have fully independent and functional unions that do not answer to the government's beck and call.

When a business owner earns a profit, does he take the bitter pill and share the majority of his profit with his staff? So why should anybody "compensate" for his losses is really beyond me.

No, I don't expect the taxpayers to provide a soft landing, I expect legislation to enforce companies to provide workers they lay off with a soft landing and comp.

Standing on your own two feet is applaudable, but not much good is it gonna do when a worker gets retrenched or have his service unfairly terminated. It will not ensure that he gets a decent payoff, he can get zilch, so what is he gonna do, chop his boss to pieces?

 

[Spock]

When a business owner goes bust, he takes the bitter pill and regroups to fight another day. Nobody is there to "compensate" his losses.

Not exactly true. A business owner has one very important protection. Limited liability. Even if the business owes creditors and customers millions of dollars, when the business goes kaput, the business owner gets off scot free without having to bear any responsibility. In serious fraud cases, the business owners can sometimes simply resurface with a new business after defrauding multiple parties.

 

[Asterix]

Your message is hardly earth shattering. It's the same old left wing liberal shit that has been repeated ad nauseam for the last hundred years by those who believe that business owners and governments owe workers a living.

When a business owner goes bust, he takes the bitter pill and regroups to fight another day. Nobody is there to "compensate" his losses.

However, when a worker loses his job, you expect taxpayers to provide a soft landing and "compensation"??? Where is the logic?

If everyone learned to stand on their own two feet, the world would be a much better place.

Your message is hardly earth shattering. It is basically right wing shit and worst you got some of facts wrong AS USUAL. Details of which will be in my next post.

By the way that AUD 30,000 grant you took from kind Aussie taxpayers is welfare you lousy Sinkie ingrate. What's worst you cheated and packed up to New Zealand after misusing taxpayers' money.

What did you spend Aussie welfare money on? A Shimano bike with carbon wheels insured for USD 15,000? Why can't you stand on your own two feet?

... ... ... When I first arrived in Australia, I applied and was approved for a state grant of AUD30,000. All I had to do was to invest in an OZ business.

I spent the grant and then withdrew my investment and moved to NZ.

 

[ZorrorroZ]

I'm gonna repeat this again...

At the risk of being a grammar Nazi, I have to point out saying "repeat ... again" in the same sentence is being redundant. To repeat is to perform an action again, making the word “again” pointless. It irks me greatly to see this.

 

[Alantis]

Sam, why are you always lumping different things together and giving a sweeping comment? Your mother hood statement cannot be prove wrong but you are barking at the wrong tree as far as the point that poomer is putting across.

And to your statement:"When a business owner goes bust, he takes the bitter pill and regroups to fight another day. Nobody is there to "compensate" his losses."

True, but that's because he is reaping the profit and bearing the risk of a entrepreneur; it's a different case in point for a worker trying to get a fair day wage.

 

[saratogas]

You should join a Union so that you can become a committee member and go on endless overseas trips.

Ya... Take on union leadership and be the loyal dogs of Gahment! Members has it's privileges...

 

[Leongsam]

When a business owner earns a profit, does he take the bitter pill and share the majority of his profit with his staff? So why should anybody "compensate" for his losses is really beyond me.

When I was running my company, I received requests from staff for the introduction of a profit sharing scheme.

I told them that I would be most happy to implement this provided they also shared the losses when the going was bad.

They never brought the issue up again.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

How can a country's trade union be headed by a member of the government cabinet? This is fundamentally wrong to begin with. Only commies like North Korea and china have that.
Pap tells you no conflict of interests just like the lee dynasty controls everything here. NTUC like the PA and other organs are controlled by pap to keep further its own interests and keep it in power

 

[Leongsam]

True, but that's because he is reaping the profit and bearing the risk of a entrepreneur; it's a different case in point for a worker trying to get a fair day wage.

People forget that business owners include fruit sellers, taxi drivers, HDB neighborhood shops run by old couples, the guy selling magazines at the street corner etc.

They work hard to make ends meet and often make very little money. Who compensates them if they run out of capital?

 

[Asterix]

People forget that business owners include fruit sellers, taxi drivers, HDB neighborhood shops run by old couples, the guy selling magazines at the street corner etc.

They work hard to make ends meet and often make very little money. Who compensates them if they run out of capital?

The logic that you don't seem to understand
Is that if an entrepreneur fails in his business
He can if he meets the criteria
Apply for unemployment benefits
Even if he only sells rojak or smelly durians
If only a comprehensive welfare system
Exists in his place of residence

If his kids happen to fall sick
During this unfortunate period
And he can't pay for medical treatment
The state will help him out

By the way it is not free
From the unfortunate entrepreneur's angle
For in good times the taxes he paid
Are pooled together
With those paid by others
Into the welfare or contingency fund
To meet present and future demands

This removes the need for ordinary citizens
To set aside excessive savings
For retirement, health and contingencies
Freeing money for consumption
Which will give a boost to the economy
Without need for primary school migrants

That a Gahbrament collects high taxes
Accumulates excessive reserves
Allocates resources according to values
Long redundant and clung on to
By 90 year old who's about to eat joss sticks
And those who blindly licks his balls

Is a travesty of the highest order
To be redressed by the People
Making their desires known
In clear and unequivocal terms
On the streets if that is what it takes
To get the hard of hearing to listen

Remember, remember 5th November

 

[laksaboy]

Joining a union (real union, not a fake union), is an insurance against an exploitative and oppressive employer.

The twits who claim that unions destroy productivity should look no further than the example of Singapore to refute that groundless claim.

 

[Equalisation]

It is utmost ridiculousness !!

The unions did absolutely nothing to help the ordinary workers in getting back all OUR hard-earned CPF money at age 55 as per past practices !!:oIo:

 

[Leongsam]

The logic that you don't seem to understand
Is that if an entrepreneur fails in his business
He can if he meets the criteria
Apply for unemployment benefits
Even if he only sells rojak or smelly durians
If only a comprehensive welfare system
Exists in his place of residence

An employee can do the same if he loses his job so why should he get retrenchment benefits?

All your arguments are stacked against the hardworking and productive members of society while doling out money to the lazy and useless.