12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    A little extra food for thought. After watching this, I've got the feeling most people here are trying to link a person's value as a human being (I.e. with wanting things like "livable wages" ) to their economic value in the market place. The two are completely separate, and my beliefs on the subject have been more centered on the economic value. Probably my favorite line in the video is, "Your raise becomes effective when you are."

    01-21-2014 12:41 AM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    A little extra food for thought. After watching this, I've got the feeling most people here are trying to link a person's value as a human being (I.e. with wanting things like "livable wages" ) to their economic value in the market place. The two are completely separate, and my beliefs on the subject have been more centered on the economic value. Probably my favorite line in the video is, "Your raise becomes effective when you are."

    I actually work for a decent wage, I have a lot of training from various entities under my belt (not a black belt, but I'm on that path....professional pun), and have a lot of experience as well, but I don't look down on anyone that works below me doing some of the other menial task at the place of my employment. The problem is access and the hoarding of information (knowledge). I bet if you wired a CEO for sound and video and followed them around for a day or even a week, you'd seriously wonder why they have such an inflated salary. There is no way that they're worth that big a percentage of a company's income compared to other employees. I doubt ANY CEO has the balls to wire themselves for video and audio so that we can see what millions of dollars is paying for.

    That actually would be a good idea, but I can see the people that are hellbent on keeping the wizard hidden behind the curtain, "Oh no we can't give away teh trade secretz!!!" If that's the case then why not wire the CEO for video and audio and make it available only to workers of their respective company? I bet it would be quite the eye opener (non-professional pun).

    Not having watched the video (I've heard the host before), NFL players' salaries are manipulated by NFL owners (CEOs if you will). The Salary Cap is a cap put in place by owners so that other owners won't pay "Market value" for an NFL player so you and the host can talk about "market value" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it is manipulated, but since the system is rigged to benefit owners, that's fine for some people. It doesn't hurt either that some people get offended when they see some flashy athlete walk around like his "stuff don't stink". Why not have a salary cap in place for CEOs? We can justify it for athletes who have only a few years of marketability, but we can't for CEOs who can go decades making more money than they're worth.
    msndrstood and palandri like this.
    01-21-2014 05:50 AM
  3. xchange's Avatar
    Maybe there isn't, but why can't we discuss a new system that might work better? I have none myself, but maybe someone else does.
    For purely conversational purposes? Yes of course. I was more referring to people who were taking a hard stance against unions when I said that until a better system is in place, having unions is a preferable alternative than having none and just relying on employers to do the right thing for their employees without any checks in place to ensure they do. Labor legislation alone has proven inadequate to that task.
    01-21-2014 10:23 AM
  4. NoYankees44's Avatar
    For purely conversational purposes? Yes of course. I was more referring to people who were taking a hard stance against unions when I said that until a better system is in place, having unions is a preferable alternative than having none and just relying on employers to do the right thing for their employees without any checks in place to ensure they do. Labor legislation alone has proven inadequate to that task.
    I have never worked in a unionized work place and have never been treated poorly. I have worked minimum wage and college degree warranting positions. I have worked for both mom and pop businesses and large corporations. Laws are enough as long as employees are willing to get off their rears and find a better employer instead of sitting around and complaining about the one they have.

    If you feel you need to fight your employer, then you probably need to just find a new one. Putting a gun to their head will only cause more problems.
    01-21-2014 10:42 AM
  5. xchange's Avatar
    I have never worked in a unionized work place and have never been treated poorly. I have worked minimum wage and college degree warranting positions. I have worked for both mom and pop businesses and large corporations. Laws are enough as long as employees are willing to get off their rears and find a better employer instead of sitting around and complaining about the one they have.

    .
    That you have had a good working history is wonderful, but you should understand that we can all recount individual and personal good/bad stories about our employment history in order to debate with each other. For every good experience I'm sure another poster can show up and tell you about his terrible one. And so on, until the stars burn out

    We're talking about systems that affect national populations here.

    If you feel you need to fight your employer, then you probably need to just find a new one. Putting a gun to their head will only cause more problems
    Or, you could fight your corrupt employer with representation, have them fined for their violation and you awarded. And have them prevented from taking reprisals by nailing them with even more fines and awards for you if they try. It does work, and I've seen it work. My coworkers and I have taken our employer to task resulting not only in millions of dollars spread among us in compensation for them not paying us for a duty we were performing, but on top of that they were forced by the gov't to change their policy to prevent it from happening again. If there was no union involvement they would never have been held accountable for this and numerous other infractions. Not without us having to hire a lawyer out of our own pockets, costing us as much as we would have received (assuming we were successful). You know what I see employers do when that even does happen? They pack up their operations and move to another locale and everyone is out of a job. Some employers need to be babysat for good behavior. Not all, but some just do.

    That doesn't mean it works all the time, or for everyone. No system is perfect. But again I repeat - it's preferable to an environment with NO accountability at all. Taking the stance that "get off your lazy **** and find a better job" is such an offensive statement to make. I'd like to see you repeat that to someone who is being outright mistreated by a corrupt employer with 20+ years of pension at stake. Really dude? C'mon.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-21-2014 10:56 AM
  6. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That you have had a good working history is wonderful, but you should understand that we can all recount individual and personal good/bad stories about our employment history in order to debate with each other. For every good experience I'm sure another poster can show up and tell you about his terrible one. And so on, until the stars burn out

    We're talking about systems that affect national populations here.


    Or, you could fight your corrupt employer with representation, have them fined for their violation and you awarded. And have them prevented from taking reprisals by nailing them with even more fines and awards for you if they try. It does work, and I've seen it work. My coworkers and I have taken our employer to task resulting not only in millions of dollars spread among us in compensation for them not paying us for a duty we were performing, but on top of that they were forced by the gov't to change their policy to prevent it from happening again. If there was no union involvement they would never have been held accountable for this and numerous other infractions. Not without us having to hire a lawyer out of our own pockets, costing us as much as we would have received (assuming we were successful). You know what I see employers do when that even does happen? They pack up their operations and move to another locale and everyone is out of a job. Some employers need to be babysat for good behavior. Not all, but some just do.

    That doesn't mean it works all the time, or for everyone. No system is perfect. But again I repeat - it's preferable to an environment with NO accountability at all. Taking the stance that "get off your lazy **** and find a better job" is such an offensive statement to make. I'd like to see you repeat that to someone who is being outright mistreated by a corrupt employer with 20+ years of pension at stake. Really dude? C'mon.
    There is a very large difference between wrong doing and mistreatment. Employers refusing to provide agreed compensation or benefits is a whole other issue. Any reason for a win-able lawsuit is completely different from demanding higher wages or benefits than what you agreed to when you hired on or making demands about the employment structure. Either way, i would get what i was owed and then get out. I have no desire to continue to work for an employer that would cause me to sue them.

    To claim that all employees need this representation is to spit in the face of every honest and decent employer there is. Of course some employers abuse their employees, but staying and fighting the abuse is not always the answer. Employees quitting and refusing to work for bad employers hurts their bottom line more than unionizing ever will. And you do not get all the negative effects of unions to go with them.

    Force should be used rarely in any situation. Showing employers the error of their ways is a much better option. One that can be accomplished with unions, but rarely ever is. They had rather play class warfare and complain about management pay grades than actually work through problems reasonably. And when that fails they ride the company into the ground without ever considering that they are part of the problem.
    01-21-2014 11:37 AM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'd like to see you repeat that to someone who is being outright mistreated by a corrupt employer with 20+ years of pension at stake. Really dude? C'mon.
    I'd question why they feel a company should have to keep paying them after they no longer work for said company. I'd rather have my own retirement in place, funded and controlled by me.
    01-21-2014 12:24 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    I have never worked in a unionized work place and have never been treated poorly. I have worked minimum wage and college degree warranting positions. I have worked for both mom and pop businesses and large corporations. Laws are enough as long as employees are willing to get off their rears and find a better employer instead of sitting around and complaining about the one they have.

    If you feel you need to fight your employer, then you probably need to just find a new one. Putting a gun to their head will only cause more problems.
    Why do you automatically associate unionism and collective bargaining with fighting? You're way off here. Collective bargaining is when two groups sit down and discuss issues.
    01-21-2014 12:24 PM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    Labor unions are one thing, public employee unions can cause as massive headache for the general public. I would tie public employee unions pay, healthcare contributions, and pension contributions to referendums the general public must vote on, since by and large it's going to be their property taxes that pay for it. Here in IL politicians have made deals with teacher unions that aren't sustainable for nothing but a vote. Go look at the last Chicago Teachers Union strike and their demands and tell me we're dealing with reasonable people.
    01-21-2014 12:36 PM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Why do you automatically associate unionism and collective bargaining with fighting? You're way off here. Collective bargaining is when two groups sit down and discuss issues.
    There is little that is peaceful about an entire workforce making demands. Are you trying to say that there is never a threat of strike or other actions? It is like gathering an army and marching to the employer's doorstep to "just talk" about salary. To unionize is to draw a line and force a wedge in between the workers and the employer. It is saying "we have to gather and force you because we have more power over you collectively". Imposing power, last time i checked, is the same as threatening to fight. Putting a gun to your employer's head...

    Collective bargaining is simply taking away individual's right to bargain for themselves. No one will ever represent you better than you. And again, to gather against is to force.
    01-21-2014 12:42 PM
  11. xchange's Avatar
    There is a very large difference between wrong doing and mistreatment. Employers refusing to provide agreed compensation or benefits is a whole other issue. Any reason for a win-able lawsuit is completely different from demanding higher wages or benefits than what you agreed to when you hired on or making demands about the employment structure. Either way, i would get what i was owed and then get out. I have no desire to continue to work for an employer that would cause me to sue them.

    To claim that all employees need this representation is to spit in the face of every honest and decent employer there is. Of course some employers abuse their employees, but staying and fighting the abuse is not always the answer. Employees quitting and refusing to work for bad employers hurts their bottom line more than unionizing ever will. And you do not get all the negative effects of unions to go with them.

    Force should be used rarely in any situation. Showing employers the error of their ways is a much better option. One that can be accomplished with unions, but rarely ever is. They had rather play class warfare and complain about management pay grades than actually work through problems reasonably. And when that fails they ride the company into the ground without ever considering that they are part of the problem.
    This isn't a very good option for employees who have invested a considerable number of years and pension in a company that treated them fairly and then due to management changes make their life miserable for those who have spent the previous 20 years working for them under better conditions. For example, when you're ~50 years old and only have 5-10 years left, starting over and seeking another job at that age is a less viable option than having an apparatus in place that will protect your rights as a worker. I'm not sure how me telling you that your statement to "get off their lazy bum and find a better job" is a terrible thing to say to those people - transformed in your eyes to - "spitting in the face of every decent employer".

    I'm also in disagreement that employees quitting hurts their bottom line. In certain companies that demand highly skilled and hard to find employees in that field? Yes perhaps. But those are far outnumbered by the number of companies that take the attitude that there are hordes of people who can't get work willing to fill your spot, so if you don't like it, too bad. Let me make this very clear - I'm not disputing that unions can easily be as corrupt as employers. They often are. But to repeat once again, I find their existence a lesser evil than a workforce with no protection at all, with no checks in place to prevent bad employers from doing as they please. I'm not sure what your employment history is or how long other than your own admission that you've never been unionized. But from a few cues I've gathered from only two of your posts so far I do get the impression that you buy into the common anti-union stereotype that those against them often use: Lazy, entitled, demanding, complaining, problematic etc. I try to avoid stereotypes for good reason.
    01-21-2014 12:47 PM
  12. xchange's Avatar
    There is little that is peaceful about an entire workforce making demands. Are you trying to say that there is never a threat of strike or other actions? It is like gathering an army and marching to the employer's doorstep to "just talk" about salary. To unionize is to draw a line and force a wedge in between the workers and the employer. It is saying "we have to gather and force you because we have more power over you collectively". Imposing power, last time i checked, is the same as threatening to fight. Putting a gun to your employer's head...

    Collective bargaining is simply taking away individual's right to bargain for themselves. No one will ever represent you better than you. And again, to gather against is to force.
    And to you I say that an employer threatening to make deep and unfair cuts into pensions, benefits, and working conditions, not because it's necessary, but because they want to increase already healthy profits is something that should be fought. Wholeheartedly. It's often less about wages than anti union people like to portray them as.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-21-2014 12:51 PM
  13. xchange's Avatar
    Labor unions are one thing, public employee unions can cause as massive headache for the general public. I would tie public employee unions pay, healthcare contributions, and pension contributions to referendums the general public must vote on, since by and large it's going to be their property taxes that pay for it. Here in IL politicians have made deals with teacher unions that aren't sustainable for nothing but a vote. Go look at the last Chicago Teachers Union strike and their demands and tell me we're dealing with reasonable people.
    Lol yes, so that every single private sector John Q Public that resents his own job can vote against it purely because he or she doesn't have it. Great idea! People don't act that way at all, right?
    01-21-2014 12:54 PM
  14. xchange's Avatar
    I'd question why they feel a company should have to keep paying them after they no longer work for said company. I'd rather have my own retirement in place, funded and controlled by me.
    Not sure what you're talking about here. Tons of companies provide a pension plan of some sort. If you would prefer not to have that, I guess that's your preference but I'd rather have a pension plan as an employee perk if I can get one.
    01-21-2014 12:59 PM
  15. SteveISU's Avatar
    Lol yes, so that every single private sector John Q Public that resents his own job can vote against it purely because he or she doesn't have it. Great idea! People don't act that way at all, right?
    Right, because the CTU deserves a 30% increase in their average salary of $74,000 because they were asked to work 1 extra hour a day. They just celebrated the 65% graduation rate, that's quite the feat.

    Tying it to political votes isn't the answer. If I'm lucky to get a 2 1/2% pay raise per year and contribute 20% to my health insurance, am I gonna feel sorry for a public employee union member who is being asked to increase his/her contribution from 7% to 9% (figures for demonstration purposes), then no I"m not gonna feel horrible about it. Not in a time when people have endured pay cuts to keep their jobs, when healthcare costs skyrocket. The difference is the union can't buy my vote. Unless you consider the same electorate who puts our politicians in office as stupid, what's the problem? If it's something ridiculous like going from 7% to 25%, then I would never vote for that. Do I think mandatory pay increases of 5% per year are a good thing, no. Home values have plummeted, yet property taxes continue to rise. In a time when very few people are seeing a pay increase and everything continues to cost more.
    01-21-2014 01:05 PM
  16. Timelessblur's Avatar
    There is little that is peaceful about an entire workforce making demands. Are you trying to say that there is never a threat of strike or other actions? It is like gathering an army and marching to the employer's doorstep to "just talk" about salary. To unionize is to draw a line and force a wedge in between the workers and the employer. It is saying "we have to gather and force you because we have more power over you collectively". Imposing power, last time i checked, is the same as threatening to fight. Putting a gun to your employer's head...

    Collective bargaining is simply taking away individual's right to bargain for themselves. No one will ever represent you better than you. And again, to gather against is to force.
    The problem you are seeing is with individual right to bargain for themselves does not work that way. You are also wrong if you thing employees are the best to argue for themselves.

    In that set up the company holds all of the cards and you are not on the same footing. They do not have to treat you the same. Union puts the employees on equal footing and gives them cards.

    now this does not always mean it is a battle. Many times it is a fairly simple no threats from either side. It is some back and forth but think of it as a business to business contract. in those contracts you know each side has their lawyers look it over and you do not get screwed by 100's of pages of fine print. Everyone looks it over.

    It is very different in Company to employee. The company has look over the contract and generally puts everything they can in their favor. Employee you know most can not understand a lot of the legalize speak and sure as hell are not going to read it as well. Plus they are not in way to get it to change. It is a straight boiler plate. Unions will look it over.

    Often times company can use the union to make things a lot easier.
    01-21-2014 01:06 PM
  17. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    It is very different in Company to employee. The company has look over the contract and generally puts everything they can in their favor. Employee you know most can not understand a lot of the legalize speak and sure as hell are not going to read it as well. Plus they are not in way to get it to change. It is a straight boiler plate. Unions will look it over.
    I just want to point out that an individual can also have an attorney look over the contract/agreement before signing. Nowhere is it stated that a Union is required to do it.
    01-21-2014 01:43 PM
  18. NoYankees44's Avatar
    And to you I say that an employer threatening to make deep and unfair cuts into pensions, benefits, and working conditions, not because it's necessary, but because they want to increase already healthy profits is something that should be fought. Wholeheartedly. It's often less about wages than anti union people like to portray them as.
    They own the company. They can do with it as they please within the law. Employees agree to provide a service for a price. The employer allows them to work there. It is not a hard concept. The company's purpose is to produce profits. It has no obligation other than that. This is not a reason to hate companies. This is a reason to prove your worth to them and make sure you work for people that recognize the value you have. If the company does not recognize that value, they do not deserve your service. If no company will recognize your value, you have over valued yourself.

    On every pension that I have ever seen it says that the company has not obligation to continue funding it. Whether you think they should or not is irrelevant. They tell the workers upfront that it will always be on the chopping block. This is why no one should ever base their retirement on funds they cannot control. If they get the pension, great. Money in their pocket. If the company chooses to not fund it like they said they might, you had better have a backup plan. You can huff and puff and complain all you want. You can also warn others from working there, but you should know what you are getting into long before that pension comes. What if the company goes under and the plan is not prefunded?
    01-21-2014 01:44 PM
  19. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Not sure what you're talking about here. Tons of companies provide a pension plan of some sort. If you would prefer not to have that, I guess that's your preference but I'd rather have a pension plan as an employee perk if I can get one.
    I think the other option is a 401k, which is something you would control versus having all your money in a giant fund that can, at the whim of the company, be ruined or mismanaged. Which would then leave you with nothing.

    For example, in my area there are a LOT of retirees from steel mills. A while back a bunch of those mills were sold to other companies. A few of those (been a while so I can't say for sure how many, but I think it was most actually) immediately ruined the pension to inflate the bottom line and left a lot of people that put 30+ years in with nothing. If memory serves, it was really only one that did it right and made sure the pension fund couldn't be touched. I would have to do research to know exact numbers, but it FOR SURE happened to more than one of these mills' retirees.
    01-21-2014 01:45 PM
  20. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I just want to point out that an individual can also have an attorney look over the contract/agreement before signing. Nowhere is it stated that a Union is required to do it.
    while this is true they can look get an attorney to look it over. But lets be honest most people are not going to do that and on top of that lets assume you do have an attorney look it over. Chances are their is jack you can to change it as you will not be in a position to get it changed.
    01-21-2014 01:47 PM
  21. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The problem you are seeing is with individual right to bargain for themselves does not work that way. You are also wrong if you thing employees are the best to argue for themselves.

    In that set up the company holds all of the cards and you are not on the same footing. They do not have to treat you the same. Union puts the employees on equal footing and gives them cards.

    now this does not always mean it is a battle. Many times it is a fairly simple no threats from either side. It is some back and forth but think of it as a business to business contract. in those contracts you know each side has their lawyers look it over and you do not get screwed by 100's of pages of fine print. Everyone looks it over.

    It is very different in Company to employee. The company has look over the contract and generally puts everything they can in their favor. Employee you know most can not understand a lot of the legalize speak and sure as hell are not going to read it as well. Plus they are not in way to get it to change. It is a straight boiler plate. Unions will look it over.

    Often times company can use the union to make things a lot easier.
    It should not be Employee vs Employer. I pity anyone that works in that kind of environment.

    Collective bargaining is a threat. An individual can do anything a group can minus threaten a strike. They can negotiate and defend their value. They can explain why they deserve the compensation they are requesting. If a company will not recognize that, then someone is wrong. comparing offers from multiple employers should tell you who it is.
    01-21-2014 01:50 PM
  22. Timelessblur's Avatar

    On every pension that I have ever seen it says that the company has not obligation to continue funding it. Whether you think they should or not is irrelevant. They tell the workers upfront that it will always be on the chopping block. This is why no one should ever base their retirement on funds they cannot control. If they get the pension, great. Money in their pocket. If the company chooses to not fund it like they said they might, you had better have a backup plan. You can huff and puff and complain all you want. You can also warn others from working there, but you should know what you are getting into long before that pension comes. What if the company goes under and the plan is not prefunded?
    even if they stop funding it guess what this means the company has to buy themselves out. Generally that comes be a lot more for the company to get get out.

    Also remember pension are federally insured . Problem is we do not hold company accountable for them umm not funding their pensions correctly.

    Remember pensions just moves the risk reward onto the company. Sadly most do not fund it enough and then they complain when it comes time to pay up. I have zero sympathy for the companies or even governments struggle as it is because they refused to keep it funded to the point they are in a huge hole and really have to start paying up. Sorry but if you had set the money aside like you where suppose to chances are good you come out on top. Instead the logic is 3 months down the road and very short term.
    01-21-2014 01:53 PM
  23. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    while this is true they can look get an attorney to look it over. But lets be honest most people are not going to do that and on top of that lets assume you do have an attorney look it over. Chances are their is jack you can to change it as you will not be in a position to get it changed.
    Why wouldn't you be? Are you implying that because a Union is a large group of people they're more likely to get what they want? Using this "collective" to force an outcome. I could be way off base, but it seems that if the group is going to get a better deal than an individual with an attorney than the system is broken. Or something else is broken.

    My point is that unions shouldn't be a required thing in the workplace just to have amenable working conditions and competitive pay for the skills/duties you have and perform for said job. Can they help things sometimes? Absolutely. Can they also hinder things sometimes? Absolutely. They aren't all bad, and they aren't all good.

    I'm also not sure I agree with the policy of some areas (I know this to be true in and around Chicago for instance) that if you have a certain job to be done that you HAVE to use the Union provided workers. Doesn't that take the choice away from the person looking to have the work done to hire who they want to do the job? Who says that someone that isn't union can't do the job just as well or better than the Union provided person/people?
    01-21-2014 01:55 PM
  24. Timelessblur's Avatar
    It should not be Employee vs Employer. I pity anyone that works in that kind of environment.

    Collective bargaining is a threat. An individual can do anything a group can minus threaten a strike. They can negotiate and defend their value. They can explain why they deserve the compensation they are requesting. If a company will not recognize that, then someone is wrong. comparing offers from multiple employers should tell you who it is.
    Again when talking about wages Employee to Employer who holds the cards. Oh way the Employer does.
    In Employer to Union both hold cards. Their is a lot more power in terms of group.
    Just like in company health insurances. Large companies get a much better rate. Small business will band together to get a better rate.

    Same issue here.
    You seem to think it is Union vs Employer. Have you ever thoguh it is Union working with Employer.
    A good Union first and only interested should be to its members. This means they have more tools they can use to get better pay. Something more than most of the members can do plus they hold a stronger stack.
    Union also per contract and be preventing from striking. They might be something like binding arbitration and when that happens both saids have to accept what ever is done.
    01-21-2014 01:57 PM
  25. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Why wouldn't you be? Are you implying that because a Union is a large group of people they're more likely to get what they want? Using this "collective" to force an outcome. I could be way off base, but it seems that if the group is going to get a better deal than an individual with an attorney than the system is broken. Or something else is broken.

    My point is that unions shouldn't be a required thing in the workplace just to have amenable working conditions and competitive pay for the skills/duties you have and perform for said job. Can they help things sometimes? Absolutely. Can they also hinder things sometimes? Absolutely. They aren't all bad, and they aren't all good.

    I'm also not sure I agree with the policy of some areas (I know this to be true in and around Chicago for instance) that if you have a certain job to be done that you HAVE to use the Union provided workers. Doesn't that take the choice away from the person looking to have the work done to hire who they want to do the job? Who says that someone that isn't union can't do the job just as well or better than the Union provided person/people?
    This is true. Sadly unions formed and are still around due to how employers treat employees by in large.

    Your 40 hour work week, you can thank the unions
    Work place safety Again Unions,
    Vacation again unions.
    Unions are a huge part to the growth of middle class. It took them working as a large group to force things to change.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    01-21-2014 01:59 PM
350 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. How do I transfer pix from my Mac to this thing?
    By thebignewt in forum Verizon HTC One
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:16 AM
  2. How to relock the boot loader and unroot the galaxy nexus.
    By Ridgerunner20 in forum Verizon Galaxy Nexus Rooting, ROM's, and Hack's
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 05:25 AM
  3. Possibly Switching from Verizon to T-Mobile
    By wodehousefan1 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 01:58 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 02:33 PM
  5. Galaxy Note 3 "Unable to connect to proxy server"
    By Jelly Belly in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 03:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD