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

[Harry Dresden]

Actually, the USPS does have competition now and see what's happening. They are constantly running in the red and are cutting back service in order to try and save themselves.

Delivery of mail is prohibited for anyone but the USPS. Parcel service has had competition for decades. Initially, UPS was the competition, run by the same union as the USPS. But FedEX is non-union and has forced UPS to become much more efficient and cost effective. This has virtually ended the USPS as a parcel service. Couple this with email and electronic funds transfers, and the only real purpose of the USPS is to deliver junk mail.

Delivery of mail is prohibited for anyone but the USPS
only 1st Class.....
run by the same union as the USPS.
i dont think so.....
This has virtually ended the USPS as a parcel service.
really?......you sure have me fooled.....i deliver more Parcels today then i can ever remember.....

In 2011, customers shipped more than 148 million Priority Mail Flat Rate boxes, generating $1.4 billion in revenue — this represents a 15 percent revenue increase and 16 percent volume increase since 2010.
The Postal Service is the No.1 choice for eBay shippers

The Postal Service can and does compete with the private sector — and it collaborates, too. UPS and FedEx pay the Postal Service to deliver more than 400 million of their ground packages to residences and the Postal Service pays them for air transportation — taking advantage of their comprehensive air network.


Couple this with email and electronic funds transfers, and the only real purpose of the USPS is to deliver junk mail

well that's your opinion.....there sure a hell of a lot of people who depend on the Service.....the PO directly or indirectly affects something like 8 Million jobs around the Country in the Direct mail industry........

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm with PredFan. I see a union label and get something else. I'll buy Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Guatemalan, ANYTHING but made by a union shop. There has to be literally no alternative for me to spend my money to support unions. Now that the union forced Chrysler to hire back 13 drug addict drunks to build Jeeps, I feel even MORE strongly about my no union policy.

the thing i look at.....is it made in America.....and i dont give a fuck if its Union or not.....i will support the Country over some stupid bullshit about Unions....

I go for quality and bang for the buck. I will buy Samsung over RCA. I will buy Toyota over Pontiac....why? Because they are a better made product. American made products aren't always the best the market has to offer.

so support China.....when they and their compadres own you and everything you own.....remember what Harry was trying to tell you....

 

[Meister]

the thing i look at.....is it made in America.....and i dont give a fuck if its Union or not.....i will support the Country over some stupid bullshit about Unions....

I go for quality and bang for the buck. I will buy Samsung over RCA. I will buy Toyota over Pontiac....why? Because they are a better made product. American made products aren't always the best the market has to offer.

so support China.....when they and their compadres own you and everything you own.....remember what Harry was trying to tell you....

You want to settle for inferior product, feel free, maybe America should try a little harder, don't you?

 

[syrenn]

If someone doesn't want to work for a union shop, they can move to a right to work state. If an employer doesn't want to be a union shop, they too can move to a right to work state.

That's exactly what's happening.

and that is bullshit.

employers should be able to hire and fire.... who THEY want. It is after all their business and NOT the unions.

employers also have the freedom to choose whether they want to become a union shop or not.

LOL... really employers want union shop? You are quite wrong about that there is a choice once the union say its a union shop

unions want union shops and they should NOT have the right to call an employers business a union shop.... its not their shop. A "union shop" should not be allowed to force or require anyone who wants to work for said employer to join the union... or NOT work there. Again, its NOT their shop.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

and that is bullshit.

employers should be able to hire and fire.... who THEY want. It is after all their business and NOT the unions.

employers also have the freedom to choose whether they want to become a union shop or not.

LOL... really employers want union shop?

If they sign a contract agreeing to one clearly they think its in their self-interest to do so. Perhaps they are wrong, but who are YOU and your NANNY STATE to make that decision for them?

You are quite wrong about that there is a choice once the union say its a union shop

The union doesn't get to just declare whether or not a company is a union shop you ignoramous. The employer must sign a contract agreeing to it. If he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. Of course he may need to find employees elsewhere, but not getting what you want from someone because you aren't willing to give them what they want for it is a fair free market consequence, wouldn't you say?

unions want union shops and they should NOT have the right to call an employers business a union shop.... its not their shop.

You're a fucking idiot. The term "union shop" refers to an agreement between union and business that the business will require its employees pay union dues, it has nothing to do with the union claiming ownership of the shop. Go correct you obvious gaping ignorance of the most basic terms of jargon used in this context and then come back.

 

[syrenn]

employers also have the freedom to choose whether they want to become a union shop or not.

LOL... really employers want union shop?

If they sign a contract agreeing to one clearly they think its in their self-interest to do so. Perhaps they are wrong, but who are YOU and your NANNY STATE to make that decision for them?

You are quite wrong about that there is a choice once the union say its a union shop

The union doesn't get to just declare whether or not a company is a union shop you ignoramous. The employer must sign a contract agreeing to it. If he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. Of course he may need to find employees elsewhere, but not getting what you want from someone because you aren't willing to give them what they want for it is a fair free market consequence, wouldn't you say?

unions want union shops and they should NOT have the right to call an employers business a union shop.... its not their shop.

You're a fucking idiot. The term "union shop" refers to an agreement between union and business that the business will require its employees pay union dues, it has nothing to do with the union claiming ownership of the shop. Go correct you obvious gaping ignorance of the most basic terms of jargon used in this context and then come back.

just becasue they sign a contract does NOT mean they want the union....

i agree... a union shop does not just get to declare its a union shop...all they have to do is get 51% of a vote and the rest are forced to join the NOW union shop.....

and just an FYI... no employer willingly signs into a union shop.

and you are the fucking idiot. Again... no business wants the unions. There is no willing agreement. The only ones requiring union dues....are the union, not the employer.

I did not say they OWN the shop.... but trust me... they THINK they own the shop.


try again union thug.

 

[Publius1787]

.

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?

.

Fact is states with right to work laws are 7 of the 10 highest wage states.

top 10 states by median income based on average form 2009-2011

1 - MD
2 - NH
3 - CT
4 - NJ
5 - MA
6 - VA
7 - AK
8 - CO
9 - HI
10 - WA
State Median Income - Income Data - U.S Census Bureau

None of these states are right to work states.
Right to Work States | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

And all of them have a higher cost of living, rendering any conclusion on medium income irrelevant.


Most Expensive States to Live in 2012 http://www.cnbc.com/id/48058145/The_Most_Expensive_States_to_Live_in_2012

10....9.....8....7...6.....5...4.....3....2....1
MA, VT, MD, RI, NJ, CA, NY, CT, AK, HI

Worst Run States in the Union http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/6/

10....9....8....7....6....5....4...3....2......1
NM, LA, RI, KY, SC, NV, AZ, MI, IL, CA

Worst Cities http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45hdlg/1-miami-fla/

#1= Miami Fl, Detroit Mi, Flint MI, Palm Beach FL, Sacramento CA, Chicago IL, Fort Lauderdale FL, Toledo OH, Rockford IL, Warren MI

 

[zakdavis]

Fact is states with right to work laws are 7 of the 10 highest wage states.

top 10 states by median income based on average form 2009-2011

1 - MD
2 - NH
3 - CT
4 - NJ
5 - MA
6 - VA
7 - AK
8 - CO
9 - HI
10 - WA
State Median Income - Income Data - U.S Census Bureau

None of these states are right to work states.
Right to Work States | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

And all of them have a higher cost of living, rendering any conclusion on medium income irrelevant.

Jesus is that bolded state expensive.

 

[Publius1787]

I hear cricketts so I will post it again.

Sure, allow the employer to hire or fire whomever he wants. Why is it against the law to fire someone for attempting to organize? Are they entitled to that job? Nope, unions paid for that law.

Because labor has a right to organize.

Sure they do. And the employer has a right to fire them for attempting to do so. Or better yet, the employer has the right to have his workers sign away their right to organize as a condition of employment. What is it about freedom you don't like?

OooPoo?

 

[gallantwarrior]

the thing i look at.....is it made in America.....and i dont give a fuck if its Union or not.....i will support the Country over some stupid bullshit about Unions....

I go for quality and bang for the buck. I will buy Samsung over RCA. I will buy Toyota over Pontiac....why? Because they are a better made product. American made products aren't always the best the market has to offer.

so support China.....when they and their compadres own you and everything you own.....remember what Harry was trying to tell you....

Shit, they already own our government, why not our economy, too. I hate to break it to you but I see plane-loads of crap coming from China daily. Return flights? Not so much. They usually run pretty close to empty or even carry only dunnage in return. So, it's cost effective to fly empty planes one way for the Chinese. We are already pretty damned far gone...

 

[gallantwarrior]

I go for quality and bang for the buck. I will buy Samsung over RCA. I will buy Toyota over Pontiac....why? Because they are a better made product. American made products aren't always the best the market has to offer.

so support China.....when they and their compadres own you and everything you own.....remember what Harry was trying to tell you....

You want to settle for inferior product, feel free, maybe America should try a little harder, don't you?

They don't need to try harder, the unions will protect their jobs, regardless of how crappy their products are.

 

[gallantwarrior]

and that is bullshit.

employers should be able to hire and fire.... who THEY want. It is after all their business and NOT the unions.

employers also have the freedom to choose whether they want to become a union shop or not.

LOL... really employers want union shop? You are quite wrong about that there is a choice once the union say its a union shop

unions want union shops and they should NOT have the right to call an employers business a union shop.... its not their shop. A "union shop" should not be allowed to force or require anyone who wants to work for said employer to join the union... or NOT work there. Again, its NOT their shop.

Last time I looked, it wasn't the company voting to bring in the union. It's called a union shop because you are not allowed to work there unless you agree to pay union extortion money to keep that job.

 

[gallantwarrior]

employers also have the freedom to choose whether they want to become a union shop or not.

LOL... really employers want union shop?

If they sign a contract agreeing to one clearly they think its in their self-interest to do so. Perhaps they are wrong, but who are YOU and your NANNY STATE to make that decision for them?

You are quite wrong about that there is a choice once the union say its a union shop

The union doesn't get to just declare whether or not a company is a union shop you ignoramous. The employer must sign a contract agreeing to it. If he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. Of course he may need to find employees elsewhere, but not getting what you want from someone because you aren't willing to give them what they want for it is a fair free market consequence, wouldn't you say?

unions want union shops and they should NOT have the right to call an employers business a union shop.... its not their shop.

You're a fucking idiot. The term "union shop" refers to an agreement between union and business that the business will require its employees pay union dues, it has nothing to do with the union claiming ownership of the shop. Go correct you obvious gaping ignorance of the most basic terms of jargon used in this context and then come back.

No, you fucking idiot. The employees agree to hire the union to negotiate on their behalf with their employer. In exchange, the EMPLOYEES agree to pay dues to the union for that representation. The employees hire the union to act as their agent when negotiating with the employer. So, technically, the contract is between the company and its employees. "Union shop" refers to the fact that once the employees have hired the union, it is almost impossible to fire the bastards and also that any and all new employees will be co-erced into paying union extortion monies in order to have and keep a "union" job.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I go for quality and bang for the buck. I will buy Samsung over RCA. I will buy Toyota over Pontiac....why? Because they are a better made product. American made products aren't always the best the market has to offer.

so support China.....when they and their compadres own you and everything you own.....remember what Harry was trying to tell you....

You want to settle for inferior product, feel free, maybe America should try a little harder, don't you?

你必须买他们的东西，否则他们走出去的企业 ....better learn it now.....and if you dont think the American Company is up to snuff.....let them know.....its what a good consumer does......

 

[Harry Dresden]

I go for quality and bang for the buck. I will buy Samsung over RCA. I will buy Toyota over Pontiac....why? Because they are a better made product. American made products aren't always the best the market has to offer.

so support China.....when they and their compadres own you and everything you own.....remember what Harry was trying to tell you....

Shit, they already own our government, why not our economy, too. I hate to break it to you but I see plane-loads of crap coming from China daily. Return flights? Not so much. They usually run pretty close to empty or even carry only dunnage in return. So, it's cost effective to fly empty planes one way for the Chinese. We are already pretty damned far gone...

gee you hate to break it to me huh?.....so why the fuck did you?....do everything you can to not buy Chinese shit and maybe they wont own as much....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Postal Service has no need to serve the customer

bullshit....i serve people every fucking day....

Do you?

If you do or don't - it makes no difference to your job or your union. You can deliver mail the same time every day, and route people first who are waiting for a check. Or you can deliver when you get around to it, there will be no impact on your job. It's not like postal customers can complain to anyone and have action taken.

once again.....bullshit.....this has been Managements whole mantra the last 3-5 years....

Right, that's why no efforts to streamline processes and cut costs have been made.

getting the Mail out is a very pressing Production goal.....i deal with this every day....so does every other Carrier and Clerks there.....

Yawn..

A production goal deals with refining processes to do more with less resources. The only goal of the USPS is to maintain a minimal level of service and get more money from congress.

they also have fired long time workers who fuck up....and i don't mean a major fuck up something not that severe...i have two drivers who intersect my route telling me this......they wish they had a Union....just because of this.....they feel if they make a mistake they could be gone tomorrow.....especially if the manager is an asshole.....this reason alone is why i feel the PO needs a Union there......they are the same way...

My neighbor works for FedEX and gets performance bonuses all the time. I'd love to see you tell him that they want a union. You know full well your claim is utter bullshit.

It's not like postal customers can complain to anyone and have action taken.
bullshit.....if i fuck up i hear about it......if something is missing they look for it....


Right, that's why no efforts to streamline processes and cut costs have been made.

are you serious?.....they are not replacing retirees....they haven't hired any one since 07......have eliminated routes and made other routes bigger......have cut hours......have cut services......are eliminating Post Offices......eliminating Processing centers.......have automated Magazine type Mail like they have the Letters.....no they are not trying.....

A production goal deals with refining processes to do more with less resources. The only goal of the USPS is to maintain a minimal level of service and get more money from congress.
sure it is.....how long have you worked there?....and they dont get money from Congress the money they are asking for is THEIR money that they paid into that fund that Congress forced them to pay into.....

My neighbor works for FedEX and gets performance bonuses all the time. I'd love to see you tell him that they want a union. You know full well your claim is utter bullshit.
oh it is.....but your claim isnt............i got two drivers telling me this.....you got one......so that means i have twice as many Fed-X people telling me this than you do.....and i think its a little more believable that i, a Mail Carrier,would run into a Fed-X or a UPS Driver then you,who all of a sudden have one who is a neighbor.....yea right......oh and by the way.....i never mentioned performance bonuses...you did.....i was talking about being fired for fucking up instead of getting a warning first.....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I hear cricketts so I will post it again.

Sure, allow the employer to hire or fire whomever he wants. Why is it against the law to fire someone for attempting to organize? Are they entitled to that job? Nope, unions paid for that law.

Because labor has a right to organize.

Sure they do. And the employer has a right to fire them for attempting to do so.

Actually he doesn't. No more than he has a right to fire a worker for testifying against him in court, or for being black, or for making a worker's compensation claim. Its an unfair labor practice.

Or better yet, the employer has the right to have his workers sign away their right to organize as a condition of employment. What is it about freedom you don't like?

You sound like a real "right to work" kinda guy to me.

 

[Publius1787]

I hear cricketts so I will post it again.

Because labor has a right to organize.

Sure they do. And the employer has a right to fire them for attempting to do so.

Actually he doesn't. No more than he has a right to fire a worker for testifying against him in court, or for being black, or for making a worker's compensation claim. Its an unfair labor practice.

Or better yet, the employer has the right to have his workers sign away their right to organize as a condition of employment. What is it about freedom you don't like?

You sound like a real "right to work" kinda guy to me.

The business belongs to the employer. It would not exist without him. It is the property of the shareholders or the owners. It is their property. Are you telling me that he shouldn't have the right to fire someone for attempting to organize or have his workers waive their right to organize as a condition of employment? Answer carefully because if the employer has no right to place a condition on employment then what right does a union have to do the same?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I hear cricketts so I will post it again.



Sure they do. And the employer has a right to fire them for attempting to do so.

Actually he doesn't. No more than he has a right to fire a worker for testifying against him in court, or for being black, or for making a worker's compensation claim. Its an unfair labor practice.

Or better yet, the employer has the right to have his workers sign away their right to organize as a condition of employment. What is it about freedom you don't like?

You sound like a real "right to work" kinda guy to me.

The business belongs to the employer.

That doesn't make him immune from the law.

It would not exist without him. It is the property of the shareholders or the owners. It is their property. Are you telling me that he shouldn't have the right to fire someone for attempting to organize or have his workers waive their right to organize as a condition of employment?

No, I'm not telling you they shouldn't have that right. I'm telling you they don't.

 

[Publius1787]

Actually he doesn't. No more than he has a right to fire a worker for testifying against him in court, or for being black, or for making a worker's compensation claim. Its an unfair labor practice.


You sound like a real "right to work" kinda guy to me.

The business belongs to the employer.

That doesn't make him immune from the law.

It would not exist without him. It is the property of the shareholders or the owners. It is their property. Are you telling me that he shouldn't have the right to fire someone for attempting to organize or have his workers waive their right to organize as a condition of employment?

No, I'm not telling you they shouldn't have that right. I'm telling you they don't.

Why don't they have that right? They once did. Unions are the reason they don't have that right. So when you bitch about "business buying politicians" to pass right to work laws remember that the unions bought politicians to pass anti-freedom to contract laws to increase their numbers, which by the way, should have been unconstitutional. Indeed, it should be unconstitutional for the government to interfere with an individuals right to contract with his employer just as it should be unconstitutional for the government to interfere with a workers right contract with a union. The only problem for leftists is that if a business can have a worker sign away his right to organize then there would be no unions. Now you know that unions rely strictly on immoral force. And one form of force begets another form of force. It's all fair game in Michigan! People like you are the same ones who destroyed part of the constitution when you claimed that the General Welfare clause gave the government power to redistribute wealth to the impoverished and were shocked when it opened the flood gates to corporate influence in government. You made your bed, lay in it!