Freedom wins...big government loses...Boeing Bill passes

[daveman]

I shouldn't have said most. Only 22 states have passed "right-to-work" laws.

How do right-to-work laws ban unions?

Hint: They don't.

Why do you hate that workers can decide for themselves what they want?

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

That's nonsense.

 

[daveman]

Did you notice you have the same BS answers for everything, no matter what the facts are. The Pub great Depression and corruption caused all this, Europe IS weak, only the USA can get us out of this, and "the greatest danger to the world economy is fanatic RWers in congress" (UK CONSERVATIVE budget Director). Great job, and the dupes are distracted by irrelevant union busting BS and debt fear mongering and electioneering. Brilliant!! Making the world fail for pure greed.

Take your meds.

 

[daveman]

Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

No, they don't effectively ban unions. They give workers the choice to join or not to join. I thought libs were pro choice. What's up with that?

Only as long as the person makes the correct liberal-approved choice.

 

[Moonglow]

How do right-to-work laws ban unions?

Hint: They don't.

Why do you hate that workers can decide for themselves what they want?

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

No it just means that the union only gets to take money out of the pockets of it's members.

In Oklahoma the state passed a law barring collection of union dues.

 

[daveman]

Who is taking money out of who's pockets?

That's the entire premise of "right to work" laws. Non-union members get to take money out of the pockets of union members. I wonder why people wouldn't join unions in those states...

Why do union members have a greater right to work than non-union members?

Since Polk punted on this, anyone else want to give it a shot?

 

[Full-Auto]

Workers can decide for themselves in any other state. The difference is that "right-to-work" laws say if you join a union, non-union workers in your shop get to take money out of your pocket. Why would anyone agree to that?

No it just means that the union only gets to take money out of the pockets of it's members.

In Oklahoma the state passed a law barring collection of union dues.

In other words no more free book keeping. The member must pay it like any other bill.

I can live with that.

 

[ba1614]

No it just means that the union only gets to take money out of the pockets of it's members.

In Oklahoma the state passed a law barring collection of union dues.

In other words no more free book keeping. The member must pay it like any other bill.

I can live with that.

Shocking, union members bitching about the effort it takes to write, and cover a check.

 

[Trajan]

well, at the very least the Political theatre generated by the pressure this bill will bring in/on the Senate, is going to be interesting to watch.

Reid is going to have to table or filibuster this bill, if not he will expose at least 6 Dem senators in Red states up for reelection next year to a straight up or down vote, plus Lieberman and Webb are retiring, they may vote their conscience and say yes.....seeing Reid table the bill or filibuster alone would be worth the price of admission to the hypocrisy fest here.....

 

[Jarhead]

In Oklahoma the state passed a law barring collection of union dues.

In other words no more free book keeping. The member must pay it like any other bill.

I can live with that.

Shocking, union members bitching about the effort it takes to write, and cover a check.

it is like those that are bitching and moaning about the thought of having to tkae out their ID when voting.

Sure...they will take the time to write a check to buy a big screen tv...asnd they will take the time to show ID when purchasing a beer...

But to write a check to pay the dues for their all important union? A PAIN IN THE ASS!
To show ID for the privelage to vote? WASTE OF TIME!

 

[JWBooth]

well, at the very least the Political theatre generated by the pressure this bill will bring in/on the Senate, is going to be interesting to watch.

Reid is going to have to table or filibuster this bill, if not he will expose at least 6 Dem senators in Red states up for reelection next year to a straight up or down vote, plus Lieberman and Webb are retiring, they may vote their conscience and say yes.....seeing Reid table the bill or filibuster alone would be worth the price of admission to the hypocrisy fest here.....

Most likely disappear in a committee where it will never again see the light of day.

 

[Ernie S.]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.

He said Boeing didn't pick South Carolina for expansion last year because of Washington's tax rates or regulatory system. Nor was it a question of chasing low wages.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. And we can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages."

Business & Technology | Albaugh: Boeing's 'first preference' is to build planes in Puget Sound region | Seattle Times Newspaper

So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Exactly how is that breaking the law. The truth is, the unions used their advantage of numbers and ability to negatively affect the success of the company to get what they want. Not necessarily what they deserve mind you....but to get what they want. That was the unions choice and now the union hurt its members.

And an FYI...and this is fact...

Unions of today have had a negative affect on employee performance. Here is why...

Joe and Jim start the same day as machinists. They have a great union package...2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 2 floating holidays, 2 personal days, and, of course, the 8 national holidays.

In december, Joe appraoches Jim and says "I have not used any of my sick days yet so since I will lose them at the end of the year, I amn going to take them next week." Joe, on the other hand feels that sick days are not vacation days and since he is not sick, he will not use them...and yes, lose them at the end of the year.

January first rolls around and it is raise time for Jim and Joe. Per the union contract, they both get their 7% raise.....but the difference is, Joe got 5 more days off last year than Jim.

So tell me....now that Joe got nothing more than Jim even though Jim took off more days last year....what do you think Joe will do with his unused sick days next year?

You see...a union contract is good for the ones with the lowest acceptable work ethic...and as a result, those in a union trend to the work ethic of the least acceptable.

Furthermore...do you feel that Joe had an advantage of being a union memeber? His raise was based on him being an employee...not based on his dedication and work ethic.

Good job!
Now if we assume Joe is an excellent worker and doesn't abandon his values, he has the option and maybe the desire to make more money in a not union shop. Why? Because he is more valuable than Jim who earns the same wage but works 2% less.
Joe can likely earn 10% more at the non union shop because of his increased productivity and his pride in what he does. He is worth more to a company than just his productivity. Lets say Joe starts at non union XYZ Inc. for what he was earning at union ABC Corp. He works along side Mike who has been there for 5 years, but produces 10% less than Joe.
Joe, after 6 months, gets a 20% raise and Mike doesn't. Mike has 2 options. He can emulate Joe, or hire on at the union plant down the road.

 

[Jarhead]

Also, for those claiming Boeing didn't break the law, that argument would be a lot easier to make if their CEO hadn't admitted it publicly.



So I can either listen to you guys and believe it wasn't retaliation, or listen to Boeing's CEO went he said it was.

Exactly how is that breaking the law. The truth is, the unions used their advantage of numbers and ability to negatively affect the success of the company to get what they want. Not necessarily what they deserve mind you....but to get what they want. That was the unions choice and now the union hurt its members.

And an FYI...and this is fact...

Unions of today have had a negative affect on employee performance. Here is why...

Joe and Jim start the same day as machinists. They have a great union package...2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 2 floating holidays, 2 personal days, and, of course, the 8 national holidays.

In december, Joe appraoches Jim and says "I have not used any of my sick days yet so since I will lose them at the end of the year, I amn going to take them next week." Joe, on the other hand feels that sick days are not vacation days and since he is not sick, he will not use them...and yes, lose them at the end of the year.

January first rolls around and it is raise time for Jim and Joe. Per the union contract, they both get their 7% raise.....but the difference is, Joe got 5 more days off last year than Jim.

So tell me....now that Joe got nothing more than Jim even though Jim took off more days last year....what do you think Joe will do with his unused sick days next year?

You see...a union contract is good for the ones with the lowest acceptable work ethic...and as a result, those in a union trend to the work ethic of the least acceptable.

Furthermore...do you feel that Joe had an advantage of being a union memeber? His raise was based on him being an employee...not based on his dedication and work ethic.

Good job!
Now if we assume Joe is an excellent worker and doesn't abandon his values, he has the option and maybe the desire to make more money in a not union shop. Why? Because he is more valuable than Jim who earns the same wage but works 2% less.
Joe can likely earn 10% more at the non union shop because of his increased productivity and his pride in what he does. He is worth more to a company than just his productivity. Lets say Joe starts at non union XYZ Inc. for what he was earning at union ABC Corp. He works along side Mike who has been there for 5 years, but produces 10% less than Joe.
Joe, after 6 months, gets a 20% raise and Mike doesn't. Mike has 2 options. He can emulate Joe, or hire on at the union plant down the road.

exactly true.

We have conducted industry studies....

Our clients that have union shops have an attendance rate that is just above the least acceptable...that is an overall atrtendance rate....the use of sick days is nearly max......4.9 out of 5 days.

ALL floating holidays used by every union employee.

Our non union clients have an attendance rate that is well above the least acceptable....as a matter of fact, the use of sick days per employee is less than 3 (2.8)


Our union shops have an average of over 1.5 "bereavement" days a year taken per employee.

Our non union shops have less than .25 per employee per annum

If one wants to allow their work ethic and dedication to dictate their success...it can NOT be in a union shop.

Sadly...an employer can not give a better raise to an equal employee no matter how much better a worker that employee is....per union contract.

So who does a union reward? The ones that get a raise even if not warranted,

And who does a union punish? The ones that get the same raise as everyone else, even if they deserve more.

So what do we have here....

Protection for the least at the cost of the best.

Sound familiar?

 

[signelect]

Maybe you libs want us to use the GE model, not taxes and manufacturing off shore. Get a job on a select panel for job, way to go Obama, that is real American thinking. Dumb "A". I apologize he is not dumb he know exactly what he is doing. He needed 4 years to screw up the country and he is on target to make it happen.

 

[Ernie S.]

Exactly how is that breaking the law. The truth is, the unions used their advantage of numbers and ability to negatively affect the success of the company to get what they want. Not necessarily what they deserve mind you....but to get what they want. That was the unions choice and now the union hurt its members.

And an FYI...and this is fact...

Unions of today have had a negative affect on employee performance. Here is why...

Joe and Jim start the same day as machinists. They have a great union package...2 weeks vacation, 5 sick days, 2 floating holidays, 2 personal days, and, of course, the 8 national holidays.

In december, Joe appraoches Jim and says "I have not used any of my sick days yet so since I will lose them at the end of the year, I amn going to take them next week." Joe, on the other hand feels that sick days are not vacation days and since he is not sick, he will not use them...and yes, lose them at the end of the year.

January first rolls around and it is raise time for Jim and Joe. Per the union contract, they both get their 7% raise.....but the difference is, Joe got 5 more days off last year than Jim.

So tell me....now that Joe got nothing more than Jim even though Jim took off more days last year....what do you think Joe will do with his unused sick days next year?

You see...a union contract is good for the ones with the lowest acceptable work ethic...and as a result, those in a union trend to the work ethic of the least acceptable.

Furthermore...do you feel that Joe had an advantage of being a union memeber? His raise was based on him being an employee...not based on his dedication and work ethic.

Good job!
Now if we assume Joe is an excellent worker and doesn't abandon his values, he has the option and maybe the desire to make more money in a not union shop. Why? Because he is more valuable than Jim who earns the same wage but works 2% less.
Joe can likely earn 10% more at the non union shop because of his increased productivity and his pride in what he does. He is worth more to a company than just his productivity. Lets say Joe starts at non union XYZ Inc. for what he was earning at union ABC Corp. He works along side Mike who has been there for 5 years, but produces 10% less than Joe.
Joe, after 6 months, gets a 20% raise and Mike doesn't. Mike has 2 options. He can emulate Joe, or hire on at the union plant down the road.

exactly true.

We have conducted industry studies....

Our clients that have union shops have an attendance rate that is just above the least acceptable...that is an overall atrtendance rate....the use of sick days is nearly max......4.9 out of 5 days.

ALL floating holidays used by every union employee.

Our non union clients have an attendance rate that is well above the least acceptable....as a matter of fact, the use of sick days per employee is less than 3 (2.8)


Our union shops have an average of over 1.5 "bereavement" days a year taken per employee.

Our non union shops have less than .25 per employee per annum

If one wants to allow their work ethic and dedication to dictate their success...it can NOT be in a union shop.

Sadly...an employer can not give a better raise to an equal employee no matter how much better a worker that employee is....per union contract.

So who does a union reward? The ones that get a raise even if not warranted,

And who does a union punish? The ones that get the same raise as everyone else, even if they deserve more.

So what do we have here....

Protection for the least at the cost of the best.

Sound familiar?

Years back I worked as a machinist in a union shop. I was running huge machines and parts were changed with 25 ton cranes.
I'm working 2nd shift and moving at my usual pace. (near flat out) I kept getting "looks" from the guys who had been there for years. I figured that as the new guy, I was being shunned and I'd eventually make some friends.
This particular night, the foreman comes to my machine and tells me that there had been complaints about my work. I told him that I was doing the best I could. "Exactly" he said. "Slow down. You're busting the time standard on every job."
I told him that he should clear the place out and hire some people that actually wanted to work.
He told me that I had better slow down or he would have to let me go.
I made it easy for him.
A few years later, I left another job because the union was holding me back. 6 months later they called and asked me to come work for 6 weeks on a special project. They said they knew of no one else that had the skills and patience to make the parts The job was extremely high precision (+/- .0002" on parts that you could loose under a fingernail.
As I had a job and was doing well, I wasn't real interested, but figured if the money was right, I could do it.
They offered me the top of toolmaker "A" pay grade which was 20% more than I had made when I left, but about what I was making on my current job. I told them I would need twice that to consider working for them again.
A couple days later they called back and we arranged for them to pay me twice, once at work and a duplicate check mailed to my home.
Had the other toolmakers known that, there would have been hell to pay, but without the union, they would have all had the ability to negotiate their own wage as I had done.

 

[Jarhead]

Good job!
Now if we assume Joe is an excellent worker and doesn't abandon his values, he has the option and maybe the desire to make more money in a not union shop. Why? Because he is more valuable than Jim who earns the same wage but works 2% less.
Joe can likely earn 10% more at the non union shop because of his increased productivity and his pride in what he does. He is worth more to a company than just his productivity. Lets say Joe starts at non union XYZ Inc. for what he was earning at union ABC Corp. He works along side Mike who has been there for 5 years, but produces 10% less than Joe.
Joe, after 6 months, gets a 20% raise and Mike doesn't. Mike has 2 options. He can emulate Joe, or hire on at the union plant down the road.

exactly true.

We have conducted industry studies....

Our clients that have union shops have an attendance rate that is just above the least acceptable...that is an overall atrtendance rate....the use of sick days is nearly max......4.9 out of 5 days.

ALL floating holidays used by every union employee.

Our non union clients have an attendance rate that is well above the least acceptable....as a matter of fact, the use of sick days per employee is less than 3 (2.8)


Our union shops have an average of over 1.5 "bereavement" days a year taken per employee.

Our non union shops have less than .25 per employee per annum

If one wants to allow their work ethic and dedication to dictate their success...it can NOT be in a union shop.

Sadly...an employer can not give a better raise to an equal employee no matter how much better a worker that employee is....per union contract.

So who does a union reward? The ones that get a raise even if not warranted,

And who does a union punish? The ones that get the same raise as everyone else, even if they deserve more.

So what do we have here....

Protection for the least at the cost of the best.

Sound familiar?

Years back I worked as a machinist in a union shop. I was running huge machines and parts were changed with 25 ton cranes.
I'm working 2nd shift and moving at my usual pace. (near flat out) I kept getting "looks" from the guys who had been there for years. I figured that as the new guy, I was being shunned and I'd eventually make some friends.
This particular night, the foreman comes to my machine and tells me that there had been complaints about my work. I told him that I was doing the best I could. "Exactly" he said. "Slow down. You're busting the time standard on every job."
I told him that he should clear the place out and hire some people that actually wanted to work.
He told me that I had better slow down or he would have to let me go.
I made it easy for him.
A few years later, I left another job because the union was holding me back. 6 months later they called and asked me to come work for 6 weeks on a special project. They said they knew of no one else that had the skills and patience to make the parts The job was extremely high precision (+/- .0002" on parts that you could loose under a fingernail.
As I had a job and was doing well, I wasn't real interested, but figured if the money was right, I could do it.
They offered me the top of toolmaker "A" pay grade which was 20% more than I had made when I left, but about what I was making on my current job. I told them I would need twice that to consider working for them again.
A couple days later they called back and we arranged for them to pay me twice, once at work and a duplicate check mailed to my home.
Had the other toolmakers known that, there would have been hell to pay, but without the union, they would have all had the ability to negotiate their own wage as I had done.

yours is not a unique story. I see similar things daily in my industry.
I have one client...a machine shop...who is was FORCED by the union to close up and relocate.
Yes, you heard me correctly...the union forced them to move.
They are a manual shop. The ownership does not believe in CNC...he believes manually turned products are the best...and his bottom line proves it.
However, they have a turnover coming up.....several set up men are retiring within a few onth period...a credit to the employer as he has very low turnover in his shop.
So he needs replacement set up men. Most now have CNC and do not have manual experience...so they are hard to find and the few we found were above what the union will allow them to pay.
So they had a choice....close up or move to a location where the set up men are more plentiful....Detroit.
They presented the situation to the union and the union said "then close up shop" calling their bluff.
Detroit has sweetheart deals for shops...so many machine shops went under...that it made sense.
And the union employees?
All lost their jobs.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well at least on this issue we can remain a free republic.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would undermine the government's case accusing Boeing Co. of retaliating against union workers.

The measure, approved on a 238-186 vote, would limit the National Labor Relations Board's enforcement power by prohibiting the agency from ordering any employer to shut down plants or relocate work, even after a company had violated labor laws.

Republicans and their allies in the business community have criticized the National Labor Relations Board for more than a year as the agency issued a spate of union-friendly decisions and rules.

Read more: House Passes Bill To Limit Labor Relations Board Authority | Fox News

So what's the new penalty for breaking the law?

What law was broken?

Care to explain?

 

[Intense]

Maybe you libs want us to use the GE model, not taxes and manufacturing off shore. Get a job on a select panel for job, way to go Obama, that is real American thinking. Dumb "A". I apologize he is not dumb he know exactly what he is doing. He needed 4 years to screw up the country and he is on target to make it happen.

Anyone that want's the GE Model should go to work for GE. Good luck with that.

Funny who is bedding who with this Administration.

 

[Conservative]

Filibuster.

I forgot... liberals only hate the filibuster when Republicans threaten it.

So what we're getting at here is that you're a hypocrite.

In what way? Have I expressed a personal opinion on the filibuster?

 

[Conservative]

Read close. I never said any state banned unions. I said states "effectively ban" unions.

effectively - Definition of effectively at Define.com Dictionary and Thesaurus (define effectively)
EFFECTIVELY: in actuality or reality or fact

Ban | Define Ban at Dictionary.com
BAN: to prohibit, forbid, or bar

'effectively ban' - to ban in actuality or reality or fact

Why did you use two different dictionaries? Wait, I already know the answer. You were looking for one that gave you the definition of effectively you wanted. If we look at what the dictionary actually says...

ef·fec·tive 
[ih-fek-tiv]
adjective
1.
adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.

Effectively | Define Effectively at Dictionary.com

you are such a ******* cry baby... I used the wrong dictionary? Please.. go cry someplace else you little pussbot.

 

[Conservative]

That's not true. States haven't given people the freedom of choice (they've had that all along). They've given people the right to take money out of the pockets of others.

Who is taking money out of who's pockets?

That's the entire premise of "right to work" laws. Non-union members get to take money out of the pockets of union members. I wonder why people wouldn't join unions in those states...

You're whining because non-union workers are free to negotiate their own wages and benefits, while the union workers are stuck with whatever the union manages to get from the employer.

Simpleton.