Admit It, You'd Like to Be in a Union Too

[daveman]

No, the question REALLY is:

For those who want to leave a union will they accept the kind of wages and benefits that are not protected by the efforts of the very unions they rebuke?

I have no problem with giving every employee the CHOICE to join a union or not. Hell, in secrecy even.

But, for those who choose to pass on the union should also be ineligible for every wage standard and benefit required by the current labor agreement. Don't find value in the union organization? fine! Enjoy your substandard wages and benefit package that are offered by the company for the value of what they think your labor is worth. Enjoy it!

but, that simple isn't the case when people opt out of unions when unions are present, which, obviously grants the eating of a cake which is had as well.

And at the same time, union members should leave alone those employees who opted out then outperform union members and get compensated accordingly.

I don't see that happening, however.

 

[daveman]

So if a union negotiated a salary increase for union workers that excluded you right wing dumbfucks and left you all earning less you would all be ok with this? I smell bullshit.

That's your upper lip.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Union tried to force Dental Assistants to join a union in the 1970's here in Arizona.
We all got together and fought it. We won. I had never experienced such communistic attitudes in my young life till they tried to do this to us.
They tried to force us to join when we did not want it.
The majority of us did not want to pay union dues that went for political people we did not support.
We also knew that we would be under the forced rules of the union and that we would lose our freedom to be able to manage our hours and our pay raises ourselves.
We the individual Dental Assistants, did it by ourselves and worked to get raises on our own work ethics. When you do a good job, you get a raise. Unions discourage this and eliminate it. They take over.
All of us were in our 20's and we all recognized it for what it was, union thugs.
The idea that, they the unions, were the only ones who could do this for us, was repulsive and insulting to us.

Were you there alongside peach watching it happen?

No?

Then perhaps you should STFU.

is that all?

 

[daveman]

Have you ever heard of "at will" employment? Meaning a company can fire you for no reason. The At will employment option is an option that exists so that even if you are producing, a hard worker etc etc they can fire you for no expressed reason. I agree companies should fire unproductive workers but to paint all union employees of being "overpaid, lazy, mindless moochers" takes a big ass brush and at will employment shows that you can be productive and all that and a company can (and I know you guys will say they should) fire you for no reason.

So? You don't have a right to work for a particular company.

 

[daveman]

Have you ever heard of "at will" employment? Meaning a company can fire you for no reason. The At will employment option is an option that exists so that even if you are producing, a hard worker etc etc they can fire you for no expressed reason. I agree companies should fire unproductive workers but to paint all union employees of being "overpaid, lazy, mindless moochers" takes a big ass brush and at will employment shows that you can be productive and all that and a company can (and I know you guys will say they should) fire you for no reason.

I've mentioned the fire at will argument to these right wing dumbasses and they think its ok for a boss to fire anyone at will because its they are the boss and it is their company, if they want their employment to be subject to the roll of a dice that's their business but slamming unions based off bullshit arguments about a handful of lazy people who benefit from it and abuse it? The fact that the business owners have and own more of the wealth is enough of an argument to prove who abuses who more.

I read your words, but all I hear is "WAAAAAAH!! I want what I haven't earned!!"

 

[daveman]

So if a union negotiated a salary increase for union workers that excluded you right wing dumbfucks and left you all earning less you would all be ok with this? I smell bullshit.

If it excluded the unproductive lazy fucks it would have my endorsment. How bout yours? LOL

You didn't answer my question dumbfuck, and don't give me that party line bullshit about all or even most union workers being lazy, get the fuck out of here. Would you be ok if a union negotiated a better salary for its members? Would you be ok with earning less and being batshit proud of being nonunion? I know you wouldn't, you be talking the same bullshit you talk now about unfairness, if you truly didn't give a fuck you wouldn't complain about unions anyways, you'd mind your own fucking business.

It's idiot leftists with their kindergarten mentality who whine about "fairness", dumbass.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sounds like we have a lot of people who believe kissing the boss's ass and having more soliderity with the boss and business owners instead of with fellow workers think that's the formula for upward success,

Mostly because it is. Joining with fellow workers in an anti boss campaign should result in the whole lot of them being fired.

 

[Flaylo]

If it excluded the unproductive lazy fucks it would have my endorsment. How bout yours? LOL

You didn't answer my question dumbfuck, and don't give me that party line bullshit about all or even most union workers being lazy, get the fuck out of here. Would you be ok if a union negotiated a better salary for its members? Would you be ok with earning less and being batshit proud of being nonunion? I know you wouldn't, you be talking the same bullshit you talk now about unfairness, if you truly didn't give a fuck you wouldn't complain about unions anyways, you'd mind your own fucking business.

It's idiot leftists with their kindergarten mentality who whine about "fairness", dumbass.

Dumbfuck, who bitching about unions trying to take away their power? Rightwing fucktards, dumbass.

 

[DiamondDave]

Have you ever heard of "at will" employment? Meaning a company can fire you for no reason. The At will employment option is an option that exists so that even if you are producing, a hard worker etc etc they can fire you for no expressed reason. I agree companies should fire unproductive workers but to paint all union employees of being "overpaid, lazy, mindless moochers" takes a big ass brush and at will employment shows that you can be productive and all that and a company can (and I know you guys will say they should) fire you for no reason.

So? You don't have a right to work for a particular company.

B-I-N-G-O

Something these extremist lefties choose to forget

 

[daveman]

If you want the benefits of being in a union and argue against unions you're a fucking hypocrite, if a union negotiated more money for the workers and left out you non union asswipes you would feel left out, thats why rightwing fucktards are attacking unions because of the envy of not having what they have, not because union workers are all lazy because you fucktards don't know that.

It's you idiot leftwing whiners who are driven by envy.

You keep projecting your own failures on everyone else.

 

[Katzndogz]

Companies do not usually fire their best and most productive employess. Companies promote them. Only unions maintain the continued employment of the worst and most unproductive employees which results in an eventual degredation of the whole company.

 

[Darkwind]

I've worked in many 'at will' states and no one has ever been fired for being productive. People who promote that kind of bullshit haven't a fucking clue on how business is run and it is no wonder they have to hide behind the skirts of a union in order to feel safe.

At will also works the other way around. An employee can quit their employer at any time, for any reason, without any notice.

It is called fairness. The true definition of fair....where both sides have an equal position.

You dont read very well. I said even if you are productive you can be fired. Pretending that one employee is one an equal playing field or fair against a company is telling.

Not only do I read well, I actually comprehend what I do read.

If someone is productive, the only reason to let that person go is a slowdown in the work available, or closing the doors. Businesses don't hire and fire on the basis of a whim. It is the mental midgets of the unions that seem to think that employers will act against their own interests.

One other thing. Unions create an adversarial relationship with their employers. In nearly all the jobs I have had, the relationship with My employer was above board, professional and mutual.

Do you need any help with those words?

 

[Jarhead]

Have you ever heard of "at will" employment? Meaning a company can fire you for no reason. The At will employment option is an option that exists so that even if you are producing, a hard worker etc etc they can fire you for no expressed reason. I agree companies should fire unproductive workers but to paint all union employees of being "overpaid, lazy, mindless moochers" takes a big ass brush and at will employment shows that you can be productive and all that and a company can (and I know you guys will say they should) fire you for no reason.

I've mentioned the fire at will argument to these right wing dumbasses and they think its ok for a boss to fire anyone at will because its they are the boss and it is their company, if they want their employment to be subject to the roll of a dice that's their business but slamming unions based off bullshit arguments about a handful of lazy people who benefit from it and abuse it? The fact that the business owners have and own more of the wealth is enough of an argument to prove who abuses who more.

you mentioned the fire at will argument but you have no idea why it exists.

It is not designed to allow employers to simply fire anyone they want to for no reason at all.

It was designed to eliminate the firvalous lawsuits from those who were fired....like the union member of my client who was fired for doing cocaine in the warehouse...buit claimed and sued for discrinmination....and thousands of dollars of attorney fees later it was tossed out of court when the security film clip was reviewed by the judge during the first hearing showing him doing the cocaine.

It was not designed to allow business owners to fire productive people simply for the sake of firing productive people.

Why?

Becuase there is no logical reason to fire a productive person and allow the competition to hire that person.

 

[daveman]

Useless fucktards have no arguments than to argue about the exc eptions and not the rule, dickheads.

Why do you fear your compensation being based on your performance?

 

[Jarhead]

I've worked in many 'at will' states and no one has ever been fired for being productive. People who promote that kind of bullshit haven't a fucking clue on how business is run and it is no wonder they have to hide behind the skirts of a union in order to feel safe.

At will also works the other way around. An employee can quit their employer at any time, for any reason, without any notice.

It is called fairness. The true definition of fair....where both sides have an equal position.

You dont read very well. I said even if you are productive you can be fired. Pretending that one employee is one an equal playing field or fair against a company is telling.

Not only do I read well, I actually comprehend what I do read.

If someone is productive, the only reason to let that person go is a slowdown in the work available, or closing the doors. Businesses don't hire and fire on the basis of a whim. It is the mental midgets of the unions that seem to think that employers will act against their own interests.

One other thing. Unions create an adversarial relationship with their employers. In nearly all the jobs I have had, the relationship with My employer was above board, professional and mutual.

Do you need any help with those words?

No. He needs help with accepting logic that contradicts his ideological assumptions.

 

[PredFan]

Lisa Wexler: Admit It, You'd Like to Be in a Union Too

Blaming unions for all the trouble we are in has become cool. We hear that public sector employees have juicy benefits, great health care coverage, guaranteed pensions. In some cases, the average public sector worker earns twice what the average private sector worker earns. We are envious -- hey, we want that too! That's not fair!

You are right -- it's not fair. But don't blame the unions for doing their job, ensuring that thousands of people are able to afford retirement, pay their doctors and work in decent, sanitary conditions. Those people buy the houses you sell them, take their clothes to your dry cleaners, support your hardware store, clothing store and bank. The problem is not that union workers earn too much, it's that the rest of us are earning too little.

Look at the facts and see what's really not fair. Right now, the top 1 percent of the wealthy own 42 percent of the nation's wealth. And a staggering 80 percent of the rest of us only control 7 percent of the nation's property! The share of the middle class pie has shrunk to negligible proportions, with huge consequences for the future of America. Are the unions responsible for the greediness of the upper class? Absolutely not. In fact, they stood as one of the only bulwarks against it.

And rightwingers keep arguing against the unions, dumb ass lemmings falling off the facktard cliff.

I'd like to recieve union pay, but I wouldn't want to be in a union.

 

[daveman]

I've worked in many 'at will' states and no one has ever been fired for being productive. People who promote that kind of bullshit haven't a fucking clue on how business is run and it is no wonder they have to hide behind the skirts of a union in order to feel safe.

At will also works the other way around. An employee can quit their employer at any time, for any reason, without any notice.

It is called fairness. The true definition of fair....where both sides have an equal position.

You dont read very well. I said even if you are productive you can be fired. Pretending that one employee is one an equal playing field or fair against a company is telling.

You're talking about exceptions, not the rule.

Flaylo hates that. Well, he says he does -- but he will not criticize it coming from you. Guaranteed.

 

[candycorn]

Companies do not usually fire their best and most productive employess. Companies promote them. Only unions maintain the continued employment of the worst and most unproductive employees which results in an eventual degredation of the whole company.

So using your logic; those who are unemployed were not the "best" or "most productive" or "union" employees? Interesting.

 

[daveman]

Were you there alongside peach watching it happen?

No?

Then perhaps you should STFU.

is that all?

You really want to pretend that your talking points trump her experience?

Good luck with that. Meanwhile, I'll laugh in your face.

 

[daveman]

You didn't answer my question dumbfuck, and don't give me that party line bullshit about all or even most union workers being lazy, get the fuck out of here. Would you be ok if a union negotiated a better salary for its members? Would you be ok with earning less and being batshit proud of being nonunion? I know you wouldn't, you be talking the same bullshit you talk now about unfairness, if you truly didn't give a fuck you wouldn't complain about unions anyways, you'd mind your own fucking business.

It's idiot leftists with their kindergarten mentality who whine about "fairness", dumbass.

Dumbfuck, who bitching about unions trying to take away their power? Rightwing fucktards, dumbass.

Man, you're TERRIFIED that you might have to earn your pay, aren't you?