Simple Point Missing in the Union threads

[ConservaDerrps]

Hey, idiot TeaPublicans, here's why you should give a fuck about the day when union membership goes away altogether. Oh, I know, it's our patriotic duty to work for $2/hr. Dummies.

 

[paulitician]

Public/Private Unions = Apples & Oranges. I'm ok with you wanting to give a sizeable portion of your paycheck to corrupt Union Bosses and Big Brother. That's your call. Just don't force others to. I'm a bit flexible when it comes to Private Sector Unions. But Public Unions should be abolished. Their time has now passed.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If I really thought all the GOP wanted was to get rid of public sector unions but leave private sector unions alone, I'd probably not care one bit...I'd also be buying the biggest load of dogshit ever. We all know that the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to end ALL unions. And as my chart illustrates, that's almost as short sighted as starting two massive wars on paying for them on the country's credit account.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hey, idiot TeaPublicans, here's why you should give a fuck about the day when union membership goes away altogether. Oh, I know, it's our patriotic duty to work for $2/hr. Dummies.

Dont presume that all TPM people are anti-union.

I am well aware of the benefits that unions have given the working class, but most of that was accomplished prior to 1980. After that date, since morally conservative people starting voting increasingly GOP, the unions became more and more against socially conservative positions and opinions.

And since then the influence of unions on the average Americans mind has also dropped, because the success unions ahd was in representing working people. They are the tail, we are the dog.

But when the unions started pushing liberal morality, they somehow got it into their mind that the tail can shake the dog, and maybe it can once in a while.

But over time, no, the dog bites off the damned tail, and that is what is happening to unions today, as more and more working class people tend to see them as part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

And the unions deserve it to some degree. They dont empathize with average Americans so much any more. They make a whole lot more money than most of us, and most of us are more determined to cling to our flag, guns and Bible than the typical union worker these days, and especially the union leadership who tend to be more often kids with business management degrees than people with HS diplomas who have spent years working the job and came up through the ranks.

Union leadership was more effective when it was composed more of the latter than the former.

Now most Americans dont remember eating dinner alongside a road as mom and dad drove to another state looking for work, homes with dirt floors and outdoor plumbing, single plank cabins with a canvas tarp for a roof.

But I suspect that they will soon be reminded in the near future and Merl Haggard's music will have a revival.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If I really thought all the GOP wanted was to get rid of public sector unions but leave private sector unions alone, I'd probably not care one bit...I'd also be buying the biggest load of dogshit ever. We all know that the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to end ALL unions. And as my chart illustrates, that's almost as short sighted as starting two massive wars on paying for them on the country's credit account.

I and most of the conservatives I know are not against public sector unions in and of themselves, but only the ability to strike and shut down the government or government services, which is bad for our national interests.

 

[paulitician]

Union dopes can be pretty funny. They get all excited and boast about handing a sizeable portion of their paychecks over to corrupt strangers. It's very simple in the end. You want to hand your paycheck over to Union Bosses & Big Brother, than by all means go for it. But don't force others to go along. Just make your own decisions, and live with them. That's how i feel about Private Sector Unions. But i firmly believe Public Unions should be abolished.

 

[Darkwind]

Why We Need Unions

If you've ever asked for a raise at work, you should understand the concept of leverage: to the extent that your employer needs you, you have it, and you're able to get something (increased wages) for it; to the extent that your employer considers you replaceable, you lack it, and therefore have no way to improve your own position. In the retail and service industries, employees lack leverage almost by definition. Anyone who makes trouble can simply be tossed out and replaced. Unions give those employees leverage. That leverage is a means to a fair wage. Not an outrageous, outsized wage; a fair wage. Any union that bankrupts the parent company is a failure, because all the union members end up unemployed. It is in the interest of unions to achieve the best possible conditions for workers that still allow the company to flourish. A union does not throw off the balance of power in the workplace—lack of a union does.

Large corporations are machines designed to make money for shareholders. They do it well. To expect them to do anything but minimize wages and maximize profit is to misunderstand their nature. The most basic sense of decency and respect for human rights dictates that there must be some mechanism by which the workers—the humans—can assert their interests. Otherwise they will be crushed by the machine. It's all very plain to see.

A farmer who had a quarrelsome family called his sons and told them to lay a bunch of sticks before him.

Then, after laying the sticks parallel to one another and binding them, he challenged his sons, one after one, to pick up the bundle and break it.

They all tried, but in vain.

Then, untying the bundle, he gave them the sticks to break one by one. This they did with the greatest ease.

Then said the father, "Thus, my sons, as long as you remain united, you are a match for anything, but differ and separate, and you are undone."

Take two posts and make one a bundle of sticks and the other one stick. Which do you think will be strongest?

I think that the simple point you missed in all the union debate threads is that the discussion centered around "PUBLIC" unions. Most people I know could care less about private unions. Go and negotiate to your hearts desire.

However, public unions are nothing but corrupt and the rights of the non union taxpayer ALSO have validity and need to be protected from this corruption.

It really is just that simple.

 

[The T]

If I really thought all the GOP wanted was to get rid of public sector unions but leave private sector unions alone, I'd probably not care one bit...I'd also be buying the biggest load of dogshit ever. We all know that the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to end ALL unions. And as my chart illustrates, that's almost as short sighted as starting two massive wars on paying for them on the country's credit account.

I and most of the conservatives I know are not against public sector unions in and of themselves, but only the ability to strike and shut down the government or government services, which is bad for our national interests.

Which FDR had a huge problem with...

"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Yeah, unions do espouse Liberal values. Like not being mistreated and abused for the sake of a dollar. Like getting time off if you get sick. Like holding employers accountable for their treatment of their employees.

I know, it's really bizarre and unAmerican to support a group that at its core, when you strip away all the hyperbole and rhetoric that you are only spouting because you've been programmed to hate the very people who made the working class strong to begin with.

The Conservatives could win this whole thing. And then when we're all making a fraction of what we used to and we get fired if we miss work because we're sick, we'll have an AWESOME economy then, huh?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If I really thought all the GOP wanted was to get rid of public sector unions but leave private sector unions alone, I'd probably not care one bit...I'd also be buying the biggest load of dogshit ever. We all know that the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to end ALL unions. And as my chart illustrates, that's almost as short sighted as starting two massive wars on paying for them on the country's credit account.

I and most of the conservatives I know are not against public sector unions in and of themselves, but only the ability to strike and shut down the government or government services, which is bad for our national interests.

Which FDR had a huge problem with...

"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

See "Worker's Bill of Rights" to see FDR's full, real vision of working Americans, and not just what Whackadoo Conservatives want you to think FDR wanted.

 

[paulitician]

Yeah, unions do espouse Liberal values. Like not being mistreated and abused for the sake of a dollar. Like getting time off if you get sick. Like holding employers accountable for their treatment of their employees.

I know, it's really bizarre and unAmerican to support a group that at its core, when you strip away all the hyperbole and rhetoric that you are only spouting because you've been programmed to hate the very people who made the working class strong to begin with.

The Conservatives could win this whole thing. And then when we're all making a fraction of what we used to and we get fired if we miss work because we're sick, we'll have an AWESOME economy then, huh?

Well then hand your paycheck over to corrupt Union Bosses and Big Brother. That's your call. But don't try and force others to. You wanna be stupid, go for it. But most other Citizens want to keep as much of their paycheck as possible. It's bad enough Big Brother is raping em every week. They don't need Unions Bosses raping em too. So go ahead and join your Union, but mind your own business and stop trying to force others to. Now Public Sector Unions on the other hand, they gotta go.

 

[The T]

I and most of the conservatives I know are not against public sector unions in and of themselves, but only the ability to strike and shut down the government or government services, which is bad for our national interests.

Which FDR had a huge problem with...

"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

See "Worker's Bill of Rights" to see FDR's full, real vision of working Americans, and not just what Whackadoo Conservatives want you to think FDR wanted.

Forget how to read shithead?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Which FDR had a huge problem with...

See "Worker's Bill of Rights" to see FDR's full, real vision of working Americans, and not just what Whackadoo Conservatives want you to think FDR wanted.

Forget how to read shithead?

No, you fucking moron. That letter he wrote, that you quoted, was in response to a public sector worker asking to have union rights pushed for public sector employees. But if you did the required reading, you'd know that FDR's real dream was to get the Worker's Bill of Rights passed which would have made certain guarantees to ALL workers, public and private sector, rendering your quote sort of irrelevant. But I know, you'll hitch your wagon to it, and ignore the actual truth of the vision that FDR really had for the nation.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppppp.

 

[The T]

See "Worker's Bill of Rights" to see FDR's full, real vision of working Americans, and not just what Whackadoo Conservatives want you to think FDR wanted.

Forget how to read shithead?

No, you fucking moron. That letter he wrote, that you quoted, was in response to a public sector worker asking to have union rights pushed for public sector employees. But if you did the required reading, you'd know that FDR's real dream was to get the Worker's Bill of Rights passed which would have made certain guarantees to ALL workers, public and private sector, rendering your quote sort of irrelevant. But I know, you'll hitch your wagon to it, and ignore the actual truth of the vision that FDR really had for the nation.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppppp.

Boy? You're lost. I bolded the pertinent part.

Again...FORGET how to read?

FDR was against PSU's...period.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Forget how to read shithead?

No, you fucking moron. That letter he wrote, that you quoted, was in response to a public sector worker asking to have union rights pushed for public sector employees. But if you did the required reading, you'd know that FDR's real dream was to get the Worker's Bill of Rights passed which would have made certain guarantees to ALL workers, public and private sector, rendering your quote sort of irrelevant. But I know, you'll hitch your wagon to it, and ignore the actual truth of the vision that FDR really had for the nation.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppppp.

Boy? You're lost. I bolded the pertinent part.

Again...FORGET how to read?

FDR was against PSU's...period.

I know fucktard. What I said was the part you put in bold was from a letter he wrote to a dude asking for union rights for the public sector. However that quote does not accurately reflect FDR's vision for labor in this country, regardless of public or private sector.

Did you do the googling I told you to do? Of course you didn't. You'd have to put down the McRib to do it. So here you go, I'll hand feed you some science:

 

[thereisnospoon]

So Repubs believe that workers need no protection? Or that workers protection from corporations is an outdated idea? Also you guys are using the "force people into unions" meme at the same time as you are saying the opposite meme "If you dont like the job find another one"

If you dont want a union job no one is forcing you to take the job.

You see tis happening now, CEO's wont give up their bonuses wen their company isnt profitable so what do they do? Fire employees and keep their bonuses. Trusting is one ting but to destroy the protections and replace it with trust is rediculous

There are laws in place. No labor organization needed.
If unions adjusted to the times and realized the economic business model of 70 years ago no longer applies, they'd most likely have a strong presence in the workforce.
On glaring reality that the gung ho pro union anti business people like to forget is that just 7% of the US workforce is unionized. That in and of itself indicates that unions are no longer needed nor wanted.
One applies for a job. They are informed of the terms and conditions of employment. If they do not agree, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Very simple concept.
Case and point of why unions are not needed and where in place are costly and inefficient.
American Airlines....Very successful carrier. Union labor...Until the airline business was deregulated( govt removed barriers to competition) everything was fine. Air fares were expensive leaving only the well off able to use air service.
After a few years, the Legacy Carriers began to suffer with reduced profits and eventually losses. One the other hand, new carriers unencumbered by expensive labor costs brought by unions began to flourish and actually MAKE MONEY. SouthWest Airlines is THE example of a profitable business model in the airline industry.
Instead of each employee having a specific job in the company, each SWA worker is cross trained. An SWA worker can handle baggage or work on the ramp and they can work the ticket counter. The maint workers are versed in ALL functions of the company's aircraft. None of the restrictive work rules insisted upon by unions. A guy that can fix a landing gear can also work on avionics. Such flexibility does not exist with union shop carriers.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

There are laws in place. No labor organization needed.

Cool. So by that logic who needs the army? We already have laws about our national sovereignty in place, so why do we need people dedicated to making sure those rights aren't ever threatened or diminished? I mean, it's not like Conservatives are out there trying to turn back the clock on women's reproductive rights or anything...Once we have a right, we don't ever have to fight to protect it.

Silly Liberals thinking we have to stay vigilant and shit.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Are we still on this. Again show me the benefits of a union. you are FORCED to pay dues, for WHAT????
Ive lived in union and nonunion states and not much difference, except taxes are lower in the nonunion states.
And I've shown non union companies have comparable pay to union ones, so why do we need unions?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I had a friend who knew somebody once who picked up a girl at a bar, and then he woke up the next morning in a bathtub full of ice with one of his kidney's removed.

So other than this dubious urban legend, what do you really have. Frankly, taking 5 hours to fix a gearbox in a crane sounds like a pretty quick turnaround job.

I used to deal with permits for state construction jobs and I can tell you that union labor does nothing but slow down work and inflate prices.

I've told this story before so here's the link

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/206314-why-you-hate-unions-8.html#post4758174

Yes, you have. Incessantly.

And if only union folks did this, you might have a point. But frankly, non-union shops do the same thing. I've been charged an hour for labor for repairs that only took ten minutes to do, and they charge me travel as well.

I've never hired a nonunion plumber or electrian who refused to cut a hole in drywall.

The fact union labor necessitates the hiring of 4 or 5 people when one is sufficient makes unions the problem

 

[buckeye45_73]

But why should he have to do that? Why not just have employers keep their word?

I haven't worked for anyone who hasn't lied to me at least once. I doubt anyone else here has, either, if they are being honest.

Unions are necessary to level the playing field. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was a level playing field to start with, there wouldn't be an issue.

But since 1980, worker salaries have remained flat (after adjusting for inflation) while Executive Salaries have increased from 44 times what a line worker makes to 470 times what a line worker makes. This is certainly not a case of rewarding management, it's just putting the wrong people in charge of the cookie jar.

And they want you to fight over the last cookie.

Did employer make any promise to hand out bonuses?

In any case, if your job sucks the only one with any control to positively change that situation is you.....Whining-n-crying on the innertubes don't pay the bills.

I've lost count of how many promises that this employer has broken, and the current one is vastly better than the last one was. They will always try to cheat you if they can get away with it, and they will usually get away with it becasue they have more power than you do. Now, true, if we had unemployment like we had under Clinton, (you know, when our worst problem was worrying if the president got a blow job) you have a bit more power, because changing jobs was easier.

Look, all a union does is make sure that the working guy ain't bringing a knife to a gunfight. They get promises from employers and they hold them to those promises. I'm just not seeing why so many working people see that as a problem.

Or why they think that it's okay if the other guy gets a raw deal.

Joe, if you dont like your employer, CHANGE jobs. ALOT of people do that. And heck in non union states we dont have union dues or as crazy of taxes.

So that "little guy" you guys talk about banks more money, even if his wages are less (and they really arent that different)
What promises are you talking about? If they dont deliver tell em to pound sand.

Yes if we had JOBS in this country, it would be easier, but to get jobs, it helps to encourage businesses not scare, berate, or gin up hatred of them.