If someone doens't want a union job they should....

[OohPooPahDoo]

If someone doens't want a union job they should....

 

[SniperFire]

If someone doesn't want a union job they should.... not be forced to pay tribute to a union as a condition of employment.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If someone doesn't want a union job they should.... not be forced to pay tribute to a union as a condition of employment.

So... take responsibility and seek employment elsewhere - or get the state to force businesses to provide jobs tailored to their liking?

 

[SniperFire]

If someone doesn't want a union job they should.... not be forced to pay tribute to a union as a condition of employment.

So... take responsibility and seek employment elsewhere - or get the state to force businesses to provide jobs tailored to their liking?

No. Not be required to join a worker union at their employer of choice. It isn't complicated..

 

[9thIDdoc]

What's "free market" about forcing people to pay for services they don't want?

 

[syrenn]

If someone doens't want a union job they should....

you left out quite a few choices.

alright.... how about this.

business A hires a person B. Person B is very happy with the new job... but is also informed its a "union shop" and if he wants to work...he has to join the union and pay dues?


Why?

the business hired him. Person B wants to work for them..... Why should the unions be allowed to force him to join and pay dues.... or not let him work.

 

[syrenn]

If someone doesn't want a union job they should.... not be forced to pay tribute to a union as a condition of employment.

So... take responsibility and seek employment elsewhere - or get the state to force businesses to provide jobs tailored to their liking?

why elsewhere?

the the business hires him... not the union.

 

[S.J.]

If someone doesn't want a union job they should....be hired as a non-union employee and get a bonus for not engaging in extortion against the company that's giving them a job.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Could you imagine the hostility toward the non-union scab?

Talk about an HR nightmare...like throwing a pedophile into general.

 

[DiamondDave]

you are free to seek employment elsewhere.. and the employer should be free to kick out a union to keep positions open for on-union employees, if the union tries to stiff arm employees into joining the union

 

[JoeB131]

What's "free market" about forcing people to pay for services they don't want?

You mean they don't want workplace safety, decent wages, right to be protected from abusive bosses?

Of course not. Everyone wants those.

What the "Right to Work" movement does is tell people you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can have all the benefits of being in a union without any of the burdens of being in the union.

Except those benefits usually go out the door when the union does.

Nobody wants to go back to this...

 

[Mac1958]

.

Higher negotiated wages, workplace safety, all that is good stuff. But I have three problems with unions, all of them quite fixable:

1. Post-employment benefits are extremely expensive. Use defined contribution (401K) plans instead of defined benefit (pension) plans. Like most everyone else. Take a massive monkey off the backs of union employers in one fell swoop, and perhaps they can hire more workers.

2. Goofy union laws damage quality and efficiency. You can drive that truck, but you can't drive that one. You can pick up that box, but not that one. Come on. Absolutely absurd and badly inefficient. Dump 'em and let the business run the way it should in an intensely competitive global environment.

3. Poorly performing, protected union employees. IF an employee is not measuring up, then there should be no impediments to an employer dismissing them, assuming reasonable measures have been taken to help the employee improve. Like anywhere else.

Let's make those three adjustments and then see where we are. Asking too much?

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Higher negotiated wages, workplace safety, all that is good stuff. But I have three problems with unions, all of them quite fixable:

1. Post-employment benefits are extremely expensive. Use defined contribution (401K) plans instead of defined benefit (pension) plans. Like most everyone else. Take a massive monkey off the backs of union employers in one fell swoop, and perhaps they can hire more workers.

2. Goofy union laws damage quality and efficiency. You can drive that truck, but you can't drive that one. You can pick up that box, but not that one. Come on. Absolutely absurd and badly inefficient. Dump 'em and let the business run the way it should in an intensely competitive global environment.

3. Poorly performing, protected union employees. IF an employee is not measuring up, then there should be no impediments to an employer dismissing them, assuming reasonable measures have been taken to help the employee improve. Like anywhere else.

Let's make those three adjustments and then see where we are. Asking too much?

.

The first one I disagree with. 401K's are an awful idea. They are really the equivlent of going to Vegas and blowing the college fund. As long as Wall Street remains a Casino, the unions are right to demand sensible pensions.

The second one, I've been on the opposite side of it. After I got out of the army, I worked as a warehouse supervisor where they kept tapping my warehouse guys to drive trucks because they were too cheap to hire truck drivers or invest in trucks. I even had to make a couple of these runs myself. These guys didn't have CDL's, and the trucks they used (from Budget) were really inadequate to the task. When one guy said, "Hey, I'm not qualified to do this and I have family commitments, I can't be out until 8 PM making deliveries." the manager gave him a shitty review even though he was excellent in his main job, which was working in the warehouse. (I fought tooth and nail on that one and still lost. that was in the bad old days when I thought the douchebags could be reasoned with.)

Third one, I agree, employers should be able to get rid of bad employees without having to fight the union tooth and nail. Some of the crazy stories of pedophile teachers who are on paid leave for a decade because they can't be fired is insane.

But again, I've seen an employee fired because she was a lesbian, I saw a guy fired because his ex-girlfriend started dating a manager, I personally got fired because I ran up too many medical bills in 2007. Advocacy should be there.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Higher negotiated wages, workplace safety, all that is good stuff. But I have three problems with unions, all of them quite fixable:

1. Post-employment benefits are extremely expensive. Use defined contribution (401K) plans instead of defined benefit (pension) plans. Like most everyone else. Take a massive monkey off the backs of union employers in one fell swoop, and perhaps they can hire more workers.

2. Goofy union laws damage quality and efficiency. You can drive that truck, but you can't drive that one. You can pick up that box, but not that one. Come on. Absolutely absurd and badly inefficient. Dump 'em and let the business run the way it should in an intensely competitive global environment.

3. Poorly performing, protected union employees. IF an employee is not measuring up, then there should be no impediments to an employer dismissing them, assuming reasonable measures have been taken to help the employee improve. Like anywhere else.

Let's make those three adjustments and then see where we are. Asking too much?

.

The first one I disagree with. 401K's are an awful idea. They are really the equivlent of going to Vegas and blowing the college fund. As long as Wall Street remains a Casino, the unions are right to demand sensible pensions.

The second one, I've been on the opposite side of it. After I got out of the army, I worked as a warehouse supervisor where they kept tapping my warehouse guys to drive trucks because they were too cheap to hire truck drivers or invest in trucks. I even had to make a couple of these runs myself. These guys didn't have CDL's, and the trucks they used (from Budget) were really inadequate to the task. When one guy said, "Hey, I'm not qualified to do this and I have family commitments, I can't be out until 8 PM making deliveries." the manager gave him a shitty review even though he was excellent in his main job, which was working in the warehouse. (I fought tooth and nail on that one and still lost. that was in the bad old days when I thought the douchebags could be reasoned with.)

Third one, I agree, employers should be able to get rid of bad employees without having to fight the union tooth and nail. Some of the crazy stories of pedophile teachers who are on paid leave for a decade because they can't be fired is insane.

But again, I've seen an employee fired because she was a lesbian, I saw a guy fired because his ex-girlfriend started dating a manager, I personally got fired because I ran up too many medical bills in 2007. Advocacy should be there.

401k plans have had their weaknesses over the years, but those issues too can be fixed. I think you'll find over the next few years that the industry sees the weaknesses, and that those plans will be making some improvements, such as lifetime guaranteed-income annuities, equity indexed products that protect against downside and better workplace education.

We've stolen several plans from other 401k providers who have been slow to change with the times, just by adding ongoing investment advice for participants and a few more flexible products to the mix. Too bad for those guys, ay?

Anyway, I think you'll see those plans looking better, very soon.

.

 

[JoeB131]

After I took a bath on mine in 2008, I'll never do it again. Not that I really expect to live long enough to retire to start with.

 

[daveman]

ANTI-UNION = ANTI-FREE MARKET

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sometimes you find interesting commentary in unusual places.

1-888-NO-UNION.COM

I think the idea that poorly performing union employees never get fired is an exaggeration derived from employees being protected from bullshit firings.

 

[JoeB131]

Sometimes you find interesting commentary in unusual places.

1-888-NO-UNION.COM

I think the idea that poorly performing union employees never get fired is an exaggeration derived from employees being protected from bullshit firings.

I'm more pro-union than anti-union these days. But there are some abuses out there.

Such as the teacher in NYC who was accused of fondling a sixth grader, and he's been on unpaid leave making nearly six figures for nearly a decade.

That's an outrageous abuse.

But so are a lot of the abuses I've seen in non-union shops.

So why can't we get to a happy medium?

 

[Mac1958]

Sometimes you find interesting commentary in unusual places.

1-888-NO-UNION.COM

I think the idea that poorly performing union employees never get fired is an exaggeration derived from employees being protected from bullshit firings.

I'm more pro-union than anti-union these days. But there are some abuses out there.

Such as the teacher in NYC who was accused of fondling a sixth grader, and he's been on unpaid leave making nearly six figures for nearly a decade.

That's an outrageous abuse.

But so are a lot of the abuses I've seen in non-union shops.

So why can't we get to a happy medium?

Bingo.

Unfortunately, reasonable, pragmatic "happy mediums" are currently frowned upon. It's my way or the highway, etc.....

.

 

[chikenwing]

What's "free market" about forcing people to pay for services they don't want?

You mean they don't want workplace safety, decent wages, right to be protected from abusive bosses?

Of course not. Everyone wants those.

What the "Right to Work" movement does is tell people you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can have all the benefits of being in a union without any of the burdens of being in the union.

Except those benefits usually go out the door when the union does.

Nobody wants to go back to this...

what year is it?? 1860 or 2012??

Use over the top emotion in all your arguments?