Leaving to work in a wog company

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
I'm pretty sure I've been told my state is a right to work state. Hmmm...well, I work for a good company and the one before that was huge and had many policies and procedures in place, so that seemed ok, too.


A lot of times large companies have headquarters that are in union states. So, their employment policies tend to be based on what will be acceptable in their "home" state.

It's a better deal a lot of times for employees in other states than if they went to work for one of their local companies.

And some companies are simply better to work for than others. And some industries are better to work in than others.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
When I in the Sea Org working at PAC Base in 1991-1995, most of that time we had no money in the Financial Planning for food, clothing or medical -- you've already had numerous reports of this true fact from others, to be sure.

Flag Management and Int Base were raking off the top of our service org income and leaving bare driblets for us to operate off of -- you've already seen this reported multiple times by multiple former staff, too.

But what I have never yet seen reported by any other is *THIS*: during this time, when there was no money for staff medical expenses, no matter how desperate and dire -- even life-threatening -- the need.... I saw issued a Scientology Policy Directive (squirrel issue type performing essentially the same function as the old BPLs), with ED Int, Guillaume Leserve's title, name and signature at the bottem (but almost certainly authored by D.M. or ordered written to his specifications) which *FORBADE STAFF FROM USING FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICES WHICH WE ALL QUALIFIED FOR DUE TO EXTREME POVERTY*. :mad:

This issue cynically asserted that Scientology Orgs must pay their own way in society and that if we could not afford to take care of our staff, then we weren't working hard enough!!!!! :eyeroll:

Sixteen and 20 Hour days and routine all-nighters were "not producing enough"!!!!!! :eek:

I swear on my honor that I am reporting a true fact, but I look for other ex-Staff / ex-Sea Org who knew about it to confirm it please.


Absolutely true.

I was told that the reason these issues came out regarding the staff not applying for any outside financial help had to do with something to do with the IRS settlement. The issues either came from or were in some way connected to OSA.

I remember one of these issues regarding staff with children. They were told they were not allowed to apply for "earned income credit". This was some kind of a credit given to families by the IRS that were below a certain income level (basically, poverty level) who had children.

I believe the "Moonlighting" PL, which Miscavige had removed from the latest versions of the green vols, had someting in there from LRH saying he had no problem with staff applying for government assistance if needed. (If anyone has access to this policy, maybe you could check and see if my very dim memory is correct.)
 

Romuva

Patron Meritorious
Sneakster,I understand your experiences and your argument.
It should be said who "They" is meant .DM and Higher execs or whoever.

I probably should of said Hubbard.In my opinion he is the one who really
started all of this insanity.

I never went on staff or SO but had experiences with a scientology business
that was using admin tech.I'm glad I got out before I entered another
phase in that assembly line.


Sorry,but from my experience I saw the whole system that Hubbard created
as insanity but that is just my opinion.People getting products and services
shoved down their throat that they didn't really want or need and being
pressured to produce stats.

I'm glad I saw through it and got the hell out of it
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I believe the "Moonlighting" PL, which Miscavige had removed from the latest versions of the green vols, had someting in there from LRH saying he had no problem with staff applying for government assistance if needed. (If anyone has access to this policy, maybe you could check and see if my very dim memory is correct.)

Per Google it seems to be HCO PL 6 October 1970. But your recall agrees with mine, Lulu.

Paul
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I would say that is the influence of the unions in states that allow unions. The non-union companies treat their employees relatively well to keep the unions out.

"Right to work" states, like the one I'm in, and one I was in before this one, are a different story. Companies can - and do - do pretty much what they want.

If you live in a "right to work" state, best bet is to start your own business. Better to be the pigeon than the statue.

Have to disagree with you there Lulu - Colorado is a "right-to fire" State but the benefits at the last three places I have worked have all been good.

As for being a union supporter - I used to be, I was a shop steward back in "ze old days" and a member of the Labour Party in Britain.

Not any more. Unions are a blight on the working class.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Have to disagree with you there Lulu - Colorado is a "right-to fire" State but the benefits at the last three places I have worked have all been good.

I think it depends a lot on who you work for. And what kind of work you do.

The last place I lived (a "right to work/right to fire" state) had very few major corporations. Most of the businesses were small family run and owned operations. Not much in the way of benefits. The pay sucked, too.

One place I worked for was really small. Like 6 employees. All but me and the receptionist were family. There were no benefits. Not even the option to pay for health insurance.

I could be wrong, but it seems like businesses like this spring up more in non-union states. Small businesses paying low wages. (Especially if you were a non family member in a family business. Nepotism always wins in those businesses.) So, the general economy is depressed. Schools are usually bad in places like this also. A lot of the skilled people eventually move to places where there is more money and better benefits. (Good chance they move to a union area, or at least an area that has a better economy.) Big businesses don't want to locate there because there isn't a lot of skilled labor and they don't want to send their kids to shitty schools. And the cycle continues.
 

Romuva

Patron Meritorious
Unions do have problems with flexibility and wage rates in comparison to
output production but sometimes it depends on the industry.

I worked in construction.In Massachusetts you basically have only
three choices:Stay with the company you're working with and hope
you get enough substanial wage increases to keep up with Health
insurance,cost of living and retirement.Join a union,pay into a 30
year pension,due system and health insurance(which kind of sucks
now because there is a 6 month period you must work in order
to stay covered) get laid off and work non-union in slow cycles.
Or start you're own business and deal with the workmens compensation
and other headaches that go with running a business and alot of
the work you get is dependent on some of the connections you have or
need to make.

I'm seeing more and more of non-union workers going into unions because
of lower rates and insurance.Particuliarly if they have families.There are
increasingly more and more immigrants working for less wages and a very
large market share of construction goes to non-union contractors.Alot
of these companies aren't small or medium size family run operations but
larger real estate development companies.These companies make millions
if not billions from the cheaper labor they use.

Safety and work conditions are another issue but OSHA sometimes smooths
out the rough spots and violators.

Unions keep the wages up and ability to organize often helps workers and
their families live better from more secure insurance and higher income.
It's not a perfect situation but lower wages and exploitation of workers
isn't a good thing either.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Unions do have problems with flexibility and wage rates in comparison to
output production but sometimes it depends on the industry.

I worked in construction.In Massachusetts you basically have only
three choices:Stay with the company you're working with and hope
you get enough substanial wage increases to keep up with Health
insurance,cost of living and retirement.Join a union,pay into a 30
year pension,due system and health insurance(which kind of sucks
now because there is a 6 month period you must work in order
to stay covered) get laid off and work non-union in slow cycles.
Or start you're own business and deal with the workmens compensation
and other headaches that go with running a business and alot of
the work you get is dependent on some of the connections you have or
need to make.

I'm seeing more and more of non-union workers going into unions because
of lower rates and insurance.Particuliarly if they have families.There are
increasingly more and more immigrants working for less wages and a very
large market share of construction goes to non-union contractors.Alot
of these companies aren't small or medium size family run operations but
larger real estate development companies.These companies make millions
if not billions from the cheaper labor they use.

Safety and work conditions are another issue but OSHA sometimes smooths
out the rough spots and violators.

Unions keep the wages up and ability to organize often helps workers and
their families live better from more secure insurance and higher income.
It's not a perfect situation but lower wages and exploitation of workers
isn't a good thing either.

You need to write up your OW's on the "Free Enterprise System".

It's against policy to be so "worker oriented".
 

Romuva

Patron Meritorious
Alanzo,I already come from a long line of commies..OW reports are the least
of my problems at this point:D
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Unions do have problems with flexibility and wage rates in comparison to
output production but sometimes it depends on the industry.

...snip...

Unions keep the wages up and ability to organize often helps workers and
their families live better from more secure insurance and higher income.
It's not a perfect situation but lower wages and exploitation of workers
isn't a good thing either.

The trouble is that you just used the same old "profts for companies v wages for oppressed workers" argument that is the output of Marx's dialectic view of history and socialism.

The trouble is that it is rubbish.

Let me cite a real life example - print unions in England 1970. The compositors and typesetters had two very strong unions, they held an absolute stranglehold on newspaper production with the result that typesetters with 20 years of service were in the top two percent of wage earners in the country.

It was unsustainable. With the advent of computerised typesetting the newspapers went to mass production facilities. They did it in secret and switched overnight because of the confrontational nature of their relationships with the unions (who had blocked many earlier attempts at updating). The result - the newspaper became profitable again, the entirety of the union memberships lost their jobs, the unions have disappeared.

The same story for the miners' union in England - and I come from a family who have been members of and staunch supporters of, the miners' union for over four generations.

Unions act to preserve the status quo they create. They actively work against innovation and increasing productivity. If unions are to become meaningful they need to do more than "fight" management or try to entrench themselves and their members. They need to be in the forefront of getting training and education for their members and enabling their members to cope with change and with progress.

sorry for the rant everyone...
 

Romuva

Patron Meritorious
actually Mick I agree with your arguments and you made a good point
about how unions can go too far.I have read about unions in europe and england and understand
your arguments.

Trade unions in Boston have good apprenticeship programs.The workers are pretty up to date
on any new technology that might come about.


The problem I see is there is no flexibility in between when it comes
to productivity,on both sides.

Take most of the trades.Automated spray guns,nail and screw guns.
prefabrication..use of heavy equipment..etc. all have increased productivity
output like they would in an idustrial production situation.Companies
have been forced to and some of it is they are more profitable because of it.

Problem is wages for non union shops have gone down below the level
of output price.The work can not only get done cheaper through technology
but through lower wages.I know painters from Brazil and central america
that make anywhere from 7-15 US dollars an hour and that's not near a
living wage considering the cost of living in the area.Also in many cases
workers don't have health insurance and god forbid if they get hurt on the job
they have to pay out of pocket(well now Massachusets has a mandatory
insurance program so it will be interesting to see what happens)

immigrant workers also depress the wages for American workers with families.

on the other hand because alot of the market share is being given to non union contractors.Union shops have less market share.They have to picket
every job to get the work and even then there isn't necessarily a guarantee
they will get the job based on the laws.

So workers are either laid off for longer periods or they drag out jobs to make
up the difference.If there was a better method of wage structure on the part
of the workers and the companies as well as better assurance they would have more work ,there might be less problems.

I understand some of the doing is by the workers but some of it is the companies and management bent on blocking unions even though they
have compensated fairly well from it using technology.

The question is how do you formulate a system that gives workers
adequate compensation and opportunities and enables companies to be
more productive and profitable?Working poor ,worker safety and conditions
are problems any industrialized society is going to have.

I haven't seen it done yet.There's greedy unrealistic workers but there
are also companies that operate that way as well.
 
Last edited:

Wisened One

Crusader
Reviving this because I think it'll be helpful for those newly joined and newly out, etc...

All these are GREAT, I do NOT miss any of them (call-in, doing promo, etc.etc.etc...)



After a good number of years on staff, and now having got a "proper" job, I'm still rediscovering what I had given up. To name a few examples:
  1. I get paid the going rate.
  2. I work normal office hours and then go home.
  3. I get weekends, Christmas and public holidays off.
  4. There is paid overtime. If I don't want to do the overtime, I simply send the work to the night shift.
  5. Not having to stay after hours to meet some letters quota.
  6. Not having to do 12½ hours "enhancement" on top of my post time.
  7. No unreal quotas and targets.
  8. My bosses are pleasant and appreciative. No screaming execs.
  9. No KRs, condition assignments, O/W write-ups, sec checks or accusations of out-ethics.
  10. No mad rush to get stats in by Thurs 2pm.
  11. I now have access to the Internet from my work space!
  12. 5 weeks' paid holiday.
  13. Use of up-to-date technology (DOS-based INCOMM system on 15 yr old computers, anyone?)
  14. Not being roped in to "events" on my night off or having to do incessant call-in for them.
  15. Supportive colleagues who have time for you.
  16. No "inspectors" in uniform walking in and enturbulating the area.
  17. No crams.
  18. Not having to do everything on the run.
  19. Not having to CSW to do "normal" things such as spend a day with the family.
 

byte301

Crusader
I just realized that I felt guilty for years after I left the cult if I didn't have 2 jobs! I couldn't just relax and enjoy time off for the longest!:duh:

But I got over that.:D
 

Wisened One

Crusader
OMG, ME TOO! :yes:

In fact, I'm STILL feeling that way and am about to work a 2nd job (nights and weekends..just to get a jump on money and pad our savings, pay off some bills,etc..).

I also miss being able to get tons done in 30 minutes while in Staff, remember that?

Jeeeeez.

I just realized that I felt guilty for years after I left the cult if I didn't have 2 jobs! I couldn't just relax and enjoy time off for the longest!:duh:

But I got over that.:D
 

cinamingrl

Patron Meritorious
I Can RElate!

My job was not the greatest, but I got paid much much more money than I did while being in the poorhouse on staff. My company that I went to work in immediately after was one that I found through a staffing agency while on staff. At the time it was called "moonlighting". But for me then it was a real job with a paycheck. I was a typist. It was a skill I'd learned in high school. :yes: :coolwink:
 
Top