Unions do not care about people, they care about DUES!

[syrenn]

This is a bit old but to the point. It is about the unionization of UPS.

Raleigh, NC (January 28, 2003) – Attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed an employee’s legal challenge to the national contract signed by United Parcel Services (UPS) and the Teamsters union that illegally requires company officials to pressure tens of thousands of workers to join the union.

National Agreement Between Teamsters Union and UPS Illegally Undermines Right to Work Laws | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation


This is the teamsters contract. Wording is written into the contract mandating union interference in free choice. It clearly shows how they pressure new employees to join. They call it "encourage."

http://www.co294.com/documents/masteragreement.pdf

Business agents and/or a steward shall be permitted to attend new employee
orientations in the right-to-work states. The Employer agrees to provide the
Local Union at least one week’s notice of the date, time, and location of such
orientation. The sole purpose of the business agent or steward’s attendance
shall be to encourage new employees to join the Union. The steward shall
remain on the clock for up to fifteen (15) minutes for that purpose if the
orientation is held during his or her normal working hours at his or her
normal place of work.

Again if it is NOT a requirement to join a union to work for an employer why pressure them into doing just that.

DUES!


I would consider this kind of personal information about me given to a union member VERY intimidating as a new hire. Especially since there is no NEED or requirement to join the union if you do not want to.

Consider what your name, address AND social security number could do to you if out there? Do you give that information to anyone on the street who asks for it? Here it is written into a teamsters union contract demanding personal information about new hires.

Article 3 section 2a

(a) All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the
effective date of this Subsection or on the date of execution of this
Agreement, whichever is the later, shall remain members of the Local Union
in good standing as a condition of employment. In order to assist the Local
Unions in maintaining current and accurate membership records, the
Employer will furnish the appropriate Local Union a list of new employees.
The Employer agrees to notify the Local Union when a new employee attains
seniority. This notification will be made in conjunction with the new
employee listing. The list will include the name, address, social security
number, date of hire, hub or center to which assigned, shift, and

Consider this. In a state that is right to work where joining the unions is NOT mandatory, the union has it written into a contract with the employer that they are REQUIRED to recommend that they become union members.

WHY?

Article 3 section 2b

(b) No provision of Section 2(a) of this Article shall apply to the extent that it
may be prohibited by state law. In those states where subsection (a) above
may not be validly applied, the Employer agrees to recommend to all new
employees that they become members of the Union and maintain such
membership during the life of this Agreement.

Dues. Make no mistake unions are about DUES.

 

[Intense]

This is a bit old but to the point. It is about the unionization of UPS.

Raleigh, NC (January 28, 2003) – Attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed an employee’s legal challenge to the national contract signed by United Parcel Services (UPS) and the Teamsters union that illegally requires company officials to pressure tens of thousands of workers to join the union.

National Agreement Between Teamsters Union and UPS Illegally Undermines Right to Work Laws | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation


This is the teamsters contract. Wording is written into the contract mandating union interference in free choice. It clearly shows how they pressure new employees to join. They call it "encourage."

http://www.co294.com/documents/masteragreement.pdf

Business agents and/or a steward shall be permitted to attend new employee
orientations in the right-to-work states. The Employer agrees to provide the
Local Union at least one week’s notice of the date, time, and location of such
orientation. The sole purpose of the business agent or steward’s attendance
shall be to encourage new employees to join the Union. The steward shall
remain on the clock for up to fifteen (15) minutes for that purpose if the
orientation is held during his or her normal working hours at his or her
normal place of work.

Again if it is NOT a requirement to join a union to work for an employer why pressure them into doing just that.

DUES!


I would consider this kind of personal information about me given to a union member VERY intimidating as a new hire. Especially since there is no NEED or requirement to join the union if you do not want to.

Consider what your name, address AND social security number could do to you if out there? Do you give that information to anyone on the street who asks for it? Here it is written into a teamsters union contract demanding personal information about new hires.

Article 3 section 2a

(a) All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the
effective date of this Subsection or on the date of execution of this
Agreement, whichever is the later, shall remain members of the Local Union
in good standing as a condition of employment. In order to assist the Local
Unions in maintaining current and accurate membership records, the
Employer will furnish the appropriate Local Union a list of new employees.
The Employer agrees to notify the Local Union when a new employee attains
seniority. This notification will be made in conjunction with the new
employee listing. The list will include the name, address, social security
number, date of hire, hub or center to which assigned, shift, and

Consider this. In a state that is right to work where joining the unions is NOT mandatory, the union has it written into a contract with the employer that they are REQUIRED to recommend that they become union members.

WHY?

Article 3 section 2b

(b) No provision of Section 2(a) of this Article shall apply to the extent that it
may be prohibited by state law. In those states where subsection (a) above
may not be validly applied, the Employer agrees to recommend to all new
employees that they become members of the Union and maintain such
membership during the life of this Agreement.

Dues. Make no mistake unions are about DUES.

It's more than that. It is diabolical. Check out "We The Living" by Ayn Rand. Study Roosevelt's "New Deal". The Union and Government workers were not only protected, by the suffering of those not connected, their lives improved while those around them lost everything, they got better wages and benefits. Farming, Industry, Distribution. Laws were not enacted to protect the Individual or the work force, or Private Industry. It was a Power Take over that established a Pecking order through Thuggery. Food destroyed, burned and plowed over, before the bread lines and soup kitchens. Small Industry eaten up by monopolization, Thugs destroying competition through mandate. If the fixes were so great, why were they so selective in who they benefited? Who's property was sold out to enrich these ass clowns??? How many were swindled and left homeless. Union nepotism denying employment and access to the Union's themselves for too many. Prejudice and discrimination in hiring from the start of their legacy. Soon we all will to choose which Union we support. I choose the USA. Employment Laws without partiality. Equal Protection under law, not contract. How far do we need to take this wrong turn???

 

[chanel]

Non union teachers in my district must pay 85 percent of union dues. You are forced to join.

But with that said, public employee unions are a necessary evil. There is no doubt in my mind, that people in my community would prefer paying teachers and cops half of what they make now. In affluent communities where education and safe neighborhoods matter, people are happy to pay them a living wage. In poorer communities, 50K is filthy rich. Check out nj.com. The most commented stories are on teacher bashing People think its a part time job.

 

[FA_Q2]

Non union teachers in my district must pay 85 percent of union dues. You are forced to join.

But with that said, public employee unions are a necessary evil. There is no doubt in my mind, that people in my community would prefer paying teachers and cops half of what they make now. In affluent communities where education and safe neighborhoods matter, people are happy to pay them a living wage. In poorer communities, 50K is filthy rich. Check out nj.com. The most commented stories are on teacher bashing People think its a part time job.

The point has been brought up in other threads as to why public sector unions cannot exist. The plain simple fact is they are NOT negotiating with any party that has to suffer the other side of the deal. By that I mean private unions have to negotiate with company leadership who is actually incurring the cost of the contract terms. Politian's are not in that position, they incur no cost at all. The taxpayers take that burden and there is no real way to negotiate those terms directly with the taxpayer. What that creates is a conflict of interests. The politician will do what the union want for access to the funds the unions give them and in return they get fat cat deals creating a mess.

 

[geauxtohell]

"We need the dues."

 

[chanel]

Non union teachers in my district must pay 85 percent of union dues. You are forced to join.

But with that said, public employee unions are a necessary evil. There is no doubt in my mind, that people in my community would prefer paying teachers and cops half of what they make now. In affluent communities where education and safe neighborhoods matter, people are happy to pay them a living wage. In poorer communities, 50K is filthy rich. Check out nj.com. The most commented stories are on teacher bashing People think its a part time job.

The point has been brought up in other threads as to why public sector unions cannot exist. The plain simple fact is they are NOT negotiating with any party that has to suffer the other side of the deal. By that I mean private unions have to negotiate with company leadership who is actually incurring the cost of the contract terms. Politian's are not in that position, they incur no cost at all. The taxpayers take that burden and there is no real way to negotiate those terms directly with the taxpayer. What that creates is a conflict of interests. The politician will do what the union want for access to the funds the unions give them and in return they get fat cat deals creating a mess.

True, however there is no competitive labor market for "free services". How would the govt. determine a fair wage for a police officer or a teacher?

I agree with what you are saying, because we had this conversation yesterday about Section 8 housing. Our local govt. is now paying landlords $1400 a month for apts. that were getting around $900. They don't care because it's not their money.

However, I don't see a workable solution. I'm a pragmatist.

 

[midcan5]

I'll share with you anti union types a fact, I have managed for many years and through large corporate mergers have people all over the country. And the ones who work in strong union areas make a great deal more than say the deep south. While I obviously recognize cost of living variables, there is a definite benefit to unions, and that is a more equitable sharing of the wealth of this nation.


"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

 

[editec]

Unions are just as capable of becoming corrupt as the corporations they stand up against.

The fact that corrupt unions AND corporations exist does not give us reason to assume that all unions are bad or that all corporations are bad, either.

This should be obvious to anybody who looks at both types of corporations logically.

Guilt by association is the hallmark of weak (and all partisan) thinking.

 

[Intense]

They hate unions because they are told to hate them.

They are demiocratic institutions that they hate.

They also are trying to claim that the US is not a democratic institution.

Its propaganda that is bought by these fools to get them to vote against their own self interests.

Some people are just so stupid they buy the propaganda.

* Well 1st off.... Maybe you are a union hack who is just likes unions b/c you are told to

* 2nd'ly... The USA is a representative republic not a democracy.

* Its propaganda that is bought by you fools to get you to vote for their (the union bosses) own self interests.

I know... I grew up in a union home when I was living at home.

THEY DID NOTHING FOR MY DAD, and he still buys into it.
We just dont talk about it b/c he knows if he stops paying his dues.... they will cut off his retirement.

Kind of like the mob if ya ask me.
He gave them 40 yrs of his life and we scraped and scartched for a living throughout my entire childhood.

So screw em... I do just fine w/o them thank you very much.
You union hacks are just so stupid to buy into the propaganda.

Many are in that predicament. You speak out against the union and your problems mount up fast.

 

[Intense]

I'll share with you anti union types a fact, I have managed for many years and through large corporate mergers have people all over the country. And the ones who work in strong union areas make a great deal more than say the deep south. While I obviously recognize cost of living variables, there is a definite benefit to unions, and that is a more equitable sharing of the wealth of this nation.


"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

Just shut up, pay your dues, and vote like we tell ya, if ya ever want to see your puppy alive again. Remember we know where you live. Is that your point? I get it now. If the union terms are so great, why aren't they just incorporated into State and Federal labor laws??? Your good old boy's network is about the most discriminatory on the planet Midcan.

 

[Intense]

Unions are just as capable of becoming corrupt as the corporations they stand up against.

The fact that corrupt unions AND corporations exist does not give us reason to assume that all unions are bad or that all corporations are bad, either.

This should be obvious to anybody who looks at both types of corporations logically.

Guilt by association is the hallmark of weak (and all partisan) thinking.

Open the books. Both sets!

 

[AquaAthena]

There are several threads going on right now discussing Unions. The question is if unions are good or bad. How about a little union strong arming directly from union mouths. How about thug mentality written right into union contract.

The popular myth is that unions are about protecting the workers when the real reason unions exist is for profit and money. The more members they have, the more they make in the way of dues.

This is an excerpt from a standard CWA contract, Article 33, page 118. Read it very carefully. You do NOT have to sign up, join the union and be a card carrying member. But if you want to work you better pay the union its dues regardless if you are a "member" or not.

Tell me how do you fail to "voluntarily" acquire anything?

http://files.cwa-union.org/CwaNet/CWAContractAllAgreements.pdf

15 B. For the purposes of this Section, “membership in good standing in the
16 Union” shall consist of payment by the employee of dues (as described
17 herein) for each calendar month not later than the last day of the second
18 following calendar month, as may be levied in accordance with
19 procedures set forth in the Union’s Constitution. Each employee of the
20 Company covered by this Agreement who fails to voluntarily acquire or
21 maintain membership in the Union shall be required, as a condition of
22 employment, beginning sixty (60) days after the effective date of this
23 Agreement or sixty (60) days after the completion of his probationary
24 period, whichever is later, to pay the Union each month a service charge
25 as a contribution for the administration of the Agreement and the
26 representation of such employee. The service charge for the first month
27 shall be in an amount equal to the Union’s regular and usual monthly
28 dues, and for each month thereafter in an amount equal to the regular and
29 usual monthly dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or
30 retaining membership.

Now why is that? If you have the free choice to NOT belong to the union as a member why would you have to pay the union its dues? Being a member of a union has no bearing if you are hired by a company or not. But if you want to keep your job you have to pay.

The fact is that if you do not pay the union its dues they can force an employer to terminate your job in accordance with the union contract the employer holds. The other option the unions have to acquire its dues is to sue the non member for the dues they believe the non member owes them.

To me unions are nothing but Racketeering, Blackmail and Extortion.

"To me unions are nothing but Racketeering, Blackmail and Extortion."

Yes. And in bed with Democratic politicians to gain even more control over our lives. Nothing altruistic about them. It's all about money....power... and by god...you had better join up!

 

[FA_Q2]

Non union teachers in my district must pay 85 percent of union dues. You are forced to join.

But with that said, public employee unions are a necessary evil. There is no doubt in my mind, that people in my community would prefer paying teachers and cops half of what they make now. In affluent communities where education and safe neighborhoods matter, people are happy to pay them a living wage. In poorer communities, 50K is filthy rich. Check out nj.com. The most commented stories are on teacher bashing People think its a part time job.

The point has been brought up in other threads as to why public sector unions cannot exist. The plain simple fact is they are NOT negotiating with any party that has to suffer the other side of the deal. By that I mean private unions have to negotiate with company leadership who is actually incurring the cost of the contract terms. Politian's are not in that position, they incur no cost at all. The taxpayers take that burden and there is no real way to negotiate those terms directly with the taxpayer. What that creates is a conflict of interests. The politician will do what the union want for access to the funds the unions give them and in return they get fat cat deals creating a mess.

True, however there is no competitive labor market for "free services". How would the govt. determine a fair wage for a police officer or a teacher?

I agree with what you are saying, because we had this conversation yesterday about Section 8 housing. Our local govt. is now paying landlords $1400 a month for apts. that were getting around $900. They don't care because it's not their money.

However, I don't see a workable solution. I'm a pragmatist.

I have no union and I receive a fair wage from the government. Uncle Sam will pay less than the private sector for sure but then again, that may be for the best. The government gives great benefits packages and non union workers in the government have those same grate packages. Believe it or not, the one thing the government IS good at is spending money and that does not change in the labor category.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unions are just as capable of becoming corrupt as the corporations they stand up against.

The fact that corrupt unions AND corporations exist does not give us reason to assume that all unions are bad or that all corporations are bad, either.

This should be obvious to anybody who looks at both types of corporations logically.

Guilt by association is the hallmark of weak (and all partisan) thinking.

the difference is the protections that the government gives unions. Nowhere is anyone required to work for a specific company as a matter of employment within a specific fields or expertise yet there are ENTIRE fields that are required to be part of a union as a matter of employment. That is plain wrong. I have said many times that unions could be good again if they were to lose that wedge that forces many people to be part of them. If they were treated more like corporations then I would have far less of a beef with them.

 

[Intense]

The power block of the union's is self serving at everyone else's expense. It happened in the great depression, it's happening now. Their wages, benefits, retirement goes up, regardless of what is happening with the economy, driving up the cost of services and product, when market factors would otherwise reduce them and make them more affordable. They win, we lose. Talk about trickle down economics. They are the new middle class having stripped the rest of us bare. Everything ends up on their terms regardless of reason or market costs. They just see themselves as superior to the rest of us, and that is all that matters.

 

[westwall]

Unions are just as capable of becoming corrupt as the corporations they stand up against.

The fact that corrupt unions AND corporations exist does not give us reason to assume that all unions are bad or that all corporations are bad, either.

This should be obvious to anybody who looks at both types of corporations logically.

Guilt by association is the hallmark of weak (and all partisan) thinking.

Wow, you actually said something that makes sense!

 

[editec]

Tool talk 101


UNIONS bad

Bosses good.

 

[antagon]

it is none of OUR business on what the unionized workers or unions do...that is between the union and their employers.

we live in a free choice working atmosphere here in the usa...if the worker in a unionized factory etc does not want to be in a union, they can find a job elsewhere, as with everyone else that has to make career decisions for themselves.

unions were formed and voted on by the majority of employees.

As far as criticism from the Peanut gallery....I thinks employees uniting to form unions is their right to do. I also think they should reorganize themselves to a new structure in their unions, that goes with the times we are in and rid themselves of the mob like leaders of their unions and replace them...but again, this is just my opinion and absolutely has no weight in this argument....I certainly would not want the "big government" getting involved in the private sector!!!

unions do enjoy protections from the government granted under the auspices of their acting in the interest of american labor. at the recognition of a betrayal of that protection which amounts to extortion of american labor, couldn't it be argued those protections should be forfeit?

i couldn't manage my business if it required dealing with union contracts, bureaucracy and strong-arming. we all own some of GM in a manner of speaking, and specifically due to the burden which union contracts place on the industry. I dont argue that they should be abolished as some have, but that protections which allow them to obstruct commerce are removed such that they will be accountable to their clients (members and businesses) on a competitive basis.

 

[antagon]

I'll share with you anti union types a fact, I have managed for many years and through large corporate mergers have people all over the country. And the ones who work in strong union areas make a great deal more than say the deep south. While I obviously recognize cost of living variables, there is a definite benefit to unions, and that is a more equitable sharing of the wealth of this nation.


"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

it is ridiculous to quote adam smith in support of unions. what are you thinking?

 

[Douger]

Unions are a form of elected govt.
See a pattern here ?