Longshoremen's union threatens more thuggery

[thereisnospoon]

[

Finish WHAT?....Your so called plutocrats for the most part SUPPORT Obama.
Obama is one of them. He is an elitist just like them.

Oh, please.

The Business Community wanted Obama gone so bad it wasn't funny. And then they pouted and fumed and said they were going to start firing people, until the public backlash against them was so great they had to whimper off with their tails between their legs.

What are you going to "finish"?

 

[JoeB131]

You must be kidding.
Large companies contribute heavily to liberal candidates and liberal causes.
I do know that Obama is an enemy to small business.
And no, they didn't whine.
Small business is doing what it must to defend their well being AND the jobs they provide against the policies of this administration.
Anyone with half a brain is going to do what they must under the law to protect their investment.
ACA is another example of good intentions paving the way to hell.
Just last week a caller into a radio show stated he was a a store manager in a fast food restaurant. The restaurant is part of a company that owns several franchise stores. The managers were gathered in a meeting. In that meeting they were informed to cut all part time workers hours to under 32 for the week. A responsible strategy to protect ALL jobs in the company.
The reason ACA is simply just too expensive. Restaurants are low margin businesses. That is across the board. The additional costs are enough to make the restaurants unprofitable.
No one is going to deliberately operate at a loss.
And please, your pat response of "well if they cannot afford the cost, they should not be in business" is unrealistic and irresponsible. It is invalid.
Employer provided insurance is not a right. It is a fringe benefit.
Under ACA people will simply go to the state insurance exchanges to get their insurance. So what?
Now, stop trying to change the narrative.

Actually, that was EXACTLY going to be my response.

If you can't afford to insure your employees, and you are going to oppose universal single payer- like every other advanced democracy has - and you can't afford to comply with the law, you shouldn't be in business.

Now, this bullshit with cutting people to 32 hours, that's going to last about as long as unemployment stays at the current rate. When it goes back down to 5% as it always does, they're going to have to do something else.

 

[JoeB131]

So, in your perfect little fantasy world, every business owner is a greedy douche bag? Okee-dokee.

Small businesses are horrible. I'd never work for one again. They are worse than the big corporations, which are at least smart enough to know there are limits.

 

[gallantwarrior]

[

Finish WHAT?....Your so called plutocrats for the most part SUPPORT Obama.
Obama is one of them. He is an elitist just like them.

Oh, please.

The Business Community wanted Obama gone so bad it wasn't funny. And then they pouted and fumed and said they were going to start firing people, until the public backlash against them was so great they had to whimper off with their tails between their legs.

You must be kidding.
Large companies contribute heavily to liberal candidates and liberal causes.
I do know that Obama is an enemy to small business.
And no, they didn't whine.
Small business is doing what it must to defend their well being AND the jobs they provide against the policies of this administration.
Anyone with half a brain is going to do what they must under the law to protect their investment.
ACA is another example of good intentions paving the way to hell.
Just last week a caller into a radio show stated he was a a store manager in a fast food restaurant. The restaurant is part of a company that owns several franchise stores. The managers were gathered in a meeting. In that meeting they were informed to cut all part time workers hours to under 32 for the week. A responsible strategy to protect ALL jobs in the company.
The reason ACA is simply just too expensive. Restaurants are low margin businesses. That is across the board. The additional costs are enough to make the restaurants unprofitable.
No one is going to deliberately operate at a loss.
And please, your pat response of "well if they cannot afford the cost, they should not be in business" is unrealistic and irresponsible. It is invalid.
Employer provided insurance is not a right. It is a fringe benefit.
Under ACA people will simply go to the state insurance exchanges to get their insurance. So what?
Now, stop trying to change the narrative.

Of course, if they were "union shops" they might be able to get an exemption from the ACA requirements.

Unions were some of the biggest supporters of Obamacare, and yet they are receiving a disproportionate number of exemptions.

Healthcare Reform Exemptions: Solution or Problem? | The Jim Wisdom Health Care Reform Blog

 

[thereisnospoon]

Funny, aren't you "conservatives" the ones who go around whining every day about how the government makes it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard for you guys to start and run a business.


I mean, if you guys were the ******* geniuses you all tell us you are, nothing the government does should stop you...

So really, being the ******* geniuses you are, you can deal with the government and the unions and stop whining about them... Sounds fair to me.

Have you ever owned or operated a business?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

Look, guy, here's the thing. I could care less if the businessman lives or dies. I don't give a **** about your problems.

You can all rot and die as far as I'm concerned. But as long as we have to put up with you, then I want the people who work for you to be protected from your greed, stupidity and general douchebaggery.

That means I want unions, and I want OSHA, EEOC, CPSC and agencies like that to do their jobs and remember who they work for.

You stated..."Funny, aren't you "conservatives" the ones who go around whining every day about how the government makes it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard for you guys to start and run a business"....My question regarding the ownership and operation of a business is in response to that statement. Now. have you ever owned or operated a business?

Umm, if all who venture to own businesses have received Joe b's ultimate punishment, who then is going to hire you?..
It's very nice to have all those alphabet bureaucracies in place, However, for the most part they are ineffective and inefficient.
The problem with OSHA for example, is their enforcement is selective. In other words, OSHA picks and chooses which companies to visit and which laws they wish to enforce.
The EEOC should be eliminated. EEOC is an advocate. It should be a law enforcement agency.
No one wants to be exposed to the unfettered whims of an employer or business.
Unfortunately as human nature goes we as a species lack the ability or have an unwillingness to police ourselves. It is at this point government must step in an essentially protect the sheep from the wolves. That's fine. Unfortunately this is done in a selective and inefficient manner.
We do have laws to protect us. All we are required to do is go to the government and lodge our grievance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So, in your perfect little fantasy world, every business owner is a greedy douche bag? Okee-dokee.

Small businesses are horrible. I'd never work for one again. They are worse than the big corporations, which are at least smart enough to know there are limits.

That's an opinion.
You seem to have had a problem with EVERY employer you've had.
Why is it you've never reached a point where you told yourself to start your own business?

 

[MikeK]

Gee, that might cost a lot of union and nonunion workers quite a bit. How is this helping the American people? That is what union leaders keep telling us they accomplish.

It is extremely rare that circumstances of a union/management conflict are fully or accurately reported. And while I'm not suggesting unions are always justified in their actions it is best to wait until all the facts are known before drawing any conclusions.

In the example of the ILA; prior to the formation of that union longhoremen were badly exploited by the port operators. They were paid very little for the often back-breaking work they do. And that work, while still dangerous, was exceptionally dangerous back then and there was no compensation for on-the-job injury. A great deal of blood was shed in the effort to unionize the docks and, as with the Teamsters, the longshoremen's union was forced to form ties with the Mafia to deal with the kind of thugs the port operators brought in to break strikes.

Having been born and raised close to the Brooklyn waterfront I recall it was not uncommon in the fifties to hear about longshoremen disappearing, or being jumped and beaten, or bodies being found, or highly suspicious "accidents" on the job. So even to this day it isn't likely an amicable relationship between the ILA and the ports has emerged from that hostile early relationship -- which has been likened to pre-union days in the West Virginia coal mines. (The movie, On The Waterfront, affords a fairly accurate glimpse of what life was like "on the docks.")

It occurs to me that if workers in today's labor market who are critical of unions knew what life was like in pre-union days they would feel much differently. What these malcontents refuse to understand is were it not for the union movement there would be none of the job benefits they presently enjoy and they probably would be working for half their present wages, or less.

 

[MikeK]

The International Longshoreman's Association(ILA) which is the union that represents 14,000 port workers on the East Coast is threatening a port shut down.
The ILA has perhaps the most expensive and inefficient work rules of any trade union in the US. The union was offered a new deal with increased productivity rules and other concessions to lower the cost of distribution. The union is going to strike which in the long run will result in it's demise.
» Malkin: What the Looming Port Strike Is Really About » Commentary -- GOPUSA
We cannot have economic growth in this country until these types of inefficient and archaic issues are eliminated.

Where's the thuggery?

Hyperbole much?

Shhhh... whenever working people don't kiss the employers boots, it's thuggery to Spoonhead.

He probably has his three minimum wage employees do that every day when they aren't making fun of him behind his back.

What these malcontents don't know about is the kind of "thuggery" corporations deployed against workers in the pre-union era. If they would do a little research into what it was like to be a worker in the 20s and beyond they would learn the famed Pinkerton's got their start as armed mercenary thugs and killers who specialized in strike-breaking. They were known for brutally beating and murdering strikers and union organizers.

It is truly shameful what these spoiled, resentful anti-union antagonists don't know -- and don't want to know.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Gee, that might cost a lot of union and nonunion workers quite a bit. How is this helping the American people? That is what union leaders keep telling us they accomplish.

It is extremely rare that the circumstances of a union/management conflict are fully or accurately reported. And while I'm not suggesting unions are always justified in their actions it is best to wait until all the facts are known before drawing any conclusions.

In the example of the ILA; prior to the formation of that union longhoremen were badly exploited by the port operators. They were paid very little for the often back-breaking work they do. And that work, while still dangerous, was exceptionally dangerous back then and there was no compensation for on-the-job injury. A great deal of blood was shed in the effort to unionize the docks and, as with the Teamsters, the longshoremen's union was forced to form ties with the Mafia to deal with the kind of thugs the port operators brought in to break strikes.

Having been born and raised close to the Brooklyn waterfront I recall it was not uncommon in the fifties to hear about longshoremen disappearing, or being jumped and beaten, or bodies being found, or highly suspicious "accidents" on the job. So even to this day it isn't likely an amicable relationship between the ILA and the ports has emerged from that hostile early relationship -- which has been likened to pre-union days in the West Virginia coal mines. (The movie, On The Waterfront, affords a fairly accurate glimpse of what life was like "on the docks.")

It occurs to me that if workers in today's labor market who are critical of unions knew what life was like in pre-union days they would feel much differently. What these malcontents refuse to understand is were it not for the union movement there would be none of the job benefits they presently enjoy and they probably would be working for half their present wages, or less.

Yes yes yes....This "if not for the labor movement..." stuff more times than we care to count.
Unions did their job. And now they are no longer needed. In fact unions are in the way. Union labor drives up the cost of doing business not only by demanding wages far and away above market rates, unions also drive costs by the work rules which stifle productivity.
Unions are OUT. They are done.
If the ILA decides to strike, it may sound the death knell for unions on the docks.
It won;t take long for companies to grow annoyed at the union and issue an ultimatum. Either return to work, or be replaced. It would come as no surprise that the federal government will order a "cooling off period" which essentially prohibits any job action.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Where's the thuggery?

Hyperbole much?

Shhhh... whenever working people don't kiss the employers boots, it's thuggery to Spoonhead.

He probably has his three minimum wage employees do that every day when they aren't making fun of him behind his back.

What these malcontents don't know about is the kind of "thuggery" corporations deployed against workers in the pre-union era. If they would do a little research into what it was like to be a worker in the 20s and beyond they would learn the famed Pinkerton's got their start as armed mercenary thugs and killers who specialized in strike-breaking. They were known for brutally beating and murdering strikers and union organizers.

It is truly shameful what these spoiled, resentful anti-union antagonists don't know -- and don't want to know.

This is one of the issues which turn most people off regarding unions. The fact that unions and union members demand "respect"..They want their tribute.
Union people expect everyone to kneel at the union altar.
Your very description of anti-union people confirms this. You are incensed by the very idea that anyone could be opposed to labor collectives. So you offer up classy descriptors such as "spoiled" "resentful" "antagonist".....
Unions served their purpose. Now they need to go away.

 

[MikeK]

Vote? What the **** does that have to do anything?
Fair? What's fair? Nothing. Life is not fair. No one is entitled to equality of outcome.
We are all responsible to ourselves FIRST.
I have no great need to be liked. So what.
Oh, there are no rules in a street fight. Blink and you're going down. Why should I give someone who is trying to hurt me a fair chance. Nope...Golden Rule of combat...Do unto others before they get a chance to do unto you.
If that blows your perception of what's fair out of the lagoon, so be it. My money, my house, my rules. Don't like it? There's the fuckin door.

I don't care who I work for, if a better opportunity comes along, I'm out the door, if the company I currently for changes direction, I'm out the door.

That is the fact of life, I know to look out for myself and the company has the same right. I'm not going to ***** to some union asshole rep to keep me on where I'm not wanted or needed.

That's the truth! I have never figured out why someone would either stay where they are obviously not wanted, or stay on a job that they felt the need to constantly complain about. If you are that miserable, move on! Some people seem to think that using union thugs to browbeat management will somehow improve their lot.

All of that is nonsensical, ignorant bravado that foolishly ignores the history of labor and the union movement in America. These malcontents are precisely analogous to spoiled rich kids. But when they find themselves competing with dozens of other displaced workers, all willing to work for less, their attitude will change. And that is exactly the direction the U.S. has been moving in since Reagan, The Man From General Electric, started the union-busting trend.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't care who I work for, if a better opportunity comes along, I'm out the door, if the company I currently for changes direction, I'm out the door.

That is the fact of life, I know to look out for myself and the company has the same right. I'm not going to ***** to some union asshole rep to keep me on where I'm not wanted or needed.

That's the truth! I have never figured out why someone would either stay where they are obviously not wanted, or stay on a job that they felt the need to constantly complain about. If you are that miserable, move on! Some people seem to think that using union thugs to browbeat management will somehow improve their lot.

All of that is nonsensical, ignorant bravado that foolishly ignores the history of labor and the union movement in America. These malcontents are precisely analogous to spoiled rich kids. But when they find themselves competing with dozens of other displaced workers, all willing to work for less, their attitude will change. And that is exactly the direction the U.S. has been moving in since Reagan, The Man From General Electric, started the union-busting trend.

Your story would fit nicely on the wall of a union boss's office but it won't wash in the real world.
No one to my knowledge has ever questioned the role unions played in the history of American labor.
The simple point is we just don't want to have anything to do with them any longer.
Oh, and your Reagan the union buster remark is FALSE.
Unions peaked in the 1960's. By 1980 union membership fell from around 35% to a little over 20%. Reagan was not president yet.
Business history will show that the only responsible party for the demise of unions is the unions themselves.
Oh, 10 years ago when the unemployment rate was at what the BLS deems "full employment" no one was talking about "competing with displaced workers for lower wages". And that had nothing to do with unions in any manner.
Lower wages are a product of the marketplace. Labor is a commodity. And as with any commodity, labor(rates) is subject to the laws of supply and demand.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Have you ever owned or operated a business?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

Look, guy, here's the thing. I could care less if the businessman lives or dies. I don't give a **** about your problems.

You can all rot and die as far as I'm concerned. But as long as we have to put up with you, then I want the people who work for you to be protected from your greed, stupidity and general douchebaggery.

That means I want unions, and I want OSHA, EEOC, CPSC and agencies like that to do their jobs and remember who they work for.

You stated..."Funny, aren't you "conservatives" the ones who go around whining every day about how the government makes it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard for you guys to start and run a business"....My question regarding the ownership and operation of a business is in response to that statement. Now. have you ever owned or operated a business?

Umm, if all who venture to own businesses have received Joe b's ultimate punishment, who then is going to hire you?..
It's very nice to have all those alphabet bureaucracies in place, However, for the most part they are ineffective and inefficient.
The problem with OSHA for example, is their enforcement is selective. In other words, OSHA picks and chooses which companies to visit and which laws they wish to enforce.
The EEOC should be eliminated. EEOC is an advocate. It should be a law enforcement agency.
No one wants to be exposed to the unfettered whims of an employer or business.
Unfortunately as human nature goes we as a species lack the ability or have an unwillingness to police ourselves. It is at this point government must step in an essentially protect the sheep from the wolves. That's fine. Unfortunately this is done in a selective and inefficient manner.
We do have laws to protect us. All we are required to do is go to the government and lodge our grievance.

Those alphabet agencies and the arbitrary and atrocious policies they invent and enforce are one of the primary reasons businesses are going someplace else. First, the big internationals go, then the smaller companies whose product or service is more portable. Then the joes of this country are all pissing and moaning about how abused the workers are and how few jobs are available.

 

[gallantwarrior]

So, in your perfect little fantasy world, every business owner is a greedy douche bag? Okee-dokee.

Small businesses are horrible. I'd never work for one again. They are worse than the big corporations, which are at least smart enough to know there are limits.

That's an opinion.
You seem to have had a problem with EVERY employer you've had.
Why is it you've never reached a point where you told yourself to start your own business?

I find it interesting when someone complains about every employer they have ever worked for. They claim to be unable to effectively negotiate for themselves. I'm guessing we're dealing with someone who is convinced they should be paid top dollar for substandard work, expecting their ability to suck oxygen out of the same room as productive people entitles them to "equal" pay. Someone totally unable to negotiate anything better because any employer with a lick on 'em would recognize a lazy, whiny POS for what he really is and who would do everything they could to unload the dead weight.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Gee, that might cost a lot of union and nonunion workers quite a bit. How is this helping the American people? That is what union leaders keep telling us they accomplish.

It is extremely rare that circumstances of a union/management conflict are fully or accurately reported. And while I'm not suggesting unions are always justified in their actions it is best to wait until all the facts are known before drawing any conclusions.

In the example of the ILA; prior to the formation of that union longhoremen were badly exploited by the port operators. They were paid very little for the often back-breaking work they do. And that work, while still dangerous, was exceptionally dangerous back then and there was no compensation for on-the-job injury. A great deal of blood was shed in the effort to unionize the docks and, as with the Teamsters, the longshoremen's union was forced to form ties with the Mafia to deal with the kind of thugs the port operators brought in to break strikes.

Having been born and raised close to the Brooklyn waterfront I recall it was not uncommon in the fifties to hear about longshoremen disappearing, or being jumped and beaten, or bodies being found, or highly suspicious "accidents" on the job. So even to this day it isn't likely an amicable relationship between the ILA and the ports has emerged from that hostile early relationship -- which has been likened to pre-union days in the West Virginia coal mines. (The movie, On The Waterfront, affords a fairly accurate glimpse of what life was like "on the docks.")

It occurs to me that if workers in today's labor market who are critical of unions knew what life was like in pre-union days they would feel much differently. What these malcontents refuse to understand is were it not for the union movement there would be none of the job benefits they presently enjoy and they probably would be working for half their present wages, or less.

Many of we "malcontents" freely acknowledge that unions had a time and place, and a purpose. But we also recognize that unions are an outdated institution that has been replaced by [gasp] government agencies that regulate many of the issues unions purport to address. Unions now tend to be headed by a self-interested bureaucracy with political ties that have replace their traditional ties to crime syndicates.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't care who I work for, if a better opportunity comes along, I'm out the door, if the company I currently for changes direction, I'm out the door.

That is the fact of life, I know to look out for myself and the company has the same right. I'm not going to ***** to some union asshole rep to keep me on where I'm not wanted or needed.

That's the truth! I have never figured out why someone would either stay where they are obviously not wanted, or stay on a job that they felt the need to constantly complain about. If you are that miserable, move on! Some people seem to think that using union thugs to browbeat management will somehow improve their lot.

All of that is nonsensical, ignorant bravado that foolishly ignores the history of labor and the union movement in America. These malcontents are precisely analogous to spoiled rich kids. But when they find themselves competing with dozens of other displaced workers, all willing to work for less, their attitude will change. And that is exactly the direction the U.S. has been moving in since Reagan, The Man From General Electric, started the union-busting trend.

I work with one of these perpetually whining, discontented fools. He claims not to need the job and yet he persists in being a pain in everyone's ass. He treats everyone he deems "lesser" like shit but sucks on the supervisors' asses so hard, I'm surprised their heads haven't caved in. Yet, he never finds anything pleasant to say and constantly harps about how much better things would be if only we'd bring in a union. Fortunately, too many of us have been burned by unions and he doesn't get much sympathy. Really, if his life at this job is so miserable, he needs to move on. He's also always telling us how much better he could do at this or that other job. Really, move on then.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't like the job and don't think you can do better, either suck it up or move on.

 

[MikeK]

Many of we "malcontents" freely acknowledge that unions had a time and place, and a purpose. But we also recognize that unions are an outdated institution that has been replaced by [gasp] government agencies that regulate many of the issues unions purport to address. Unions now tend to be headed by a self-interested bureaucracy with political ties that have replace their traditional ties to crime syndicates.

The notion that the time and place for labor unions is past exhibits a dangerous trend in contemporary thinking. The idea that existing labor laws can take the place of unions is comparable to believing a baby-sitter can take the place of a natural mother. Did you ever hear of a federal agency representing employees vs an employer in salary and benefits negotiation? And how much experience have you had in dealing with a federal bureaucracy? Try bringing a minor grievance against your employer to some Labor Department hack and see what happens.

Every one of the federal and state labor laws in place today are the direct result of pressure applied to politicians by the national union collective which directed its membership's voting habits. When the unions are gone the process will reverse and you will see every one of those labor laws go the way of regulations which once prevented Wall Street and the banks from ripping us off and looting our Treasury.

You should understand that every benefit enjoyed by American workers today is the result of efforts by the union movement. And because a rising tide raises all boats, that applies to non-union workers, too.

Just keep in mind that unions represent organization, for which there is no substitute. Just try to imagine yourself standing alone in opposition to a corporation and you'll get the idea, because that is what it's about.

Unions are far from perfect. Some of them are worthless and some are corrupt. But even the worst union can be fixed by its membership. So it's a very bad idea to toss out the baby with the bathwater.

Get organized and stay organized. Otherwise you're on your own.

 

[gallantwarrior]

How do you correlate the current corrupt government with unions? As I see it, unions have bought the best government possible and they only serve to funnel money into various political coffers.

 

[MikeK]

I work with one of these perpetually whining, discontented fools. He claims not to need the job and yet he persists in being a pain in everyone's ass. He treats everyone he deems "lesser" like shit but sucks on the supervisors' asses so hard, I'm surprised their heads haven't caved in. Yet, he never finds anything pleasant to say and constantly harps about how much better things would be if only we'd bring in a union. Fortunately, too many of us have been burned by unions and he doesn't get much sympathy. Really, if his life at this job is so miserable, he needs to move on. He's also always telling us how much better he could do at this or that other job. Really, move on then.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't like the job and don't think you can do better, either suck it up or move on.

Please be more specific about being "burned" by a union?

And what is your situation now? Are you content with your pay and benefits? Working conditions? Or do you think a union could significantly improve things? If not, why not?

The take-it-or-leave-it attitude where your job is concerned could, and probably will, turn out to be very self-defeating because it tends to drive wages down and erode benefits.

 

[MikeK]

How do you correlate the current corrupt government with unions? As I see it, unions have bought the best government possible and they only serve to funnel money into various political coffers.

And because you believe unions are accomodating to politicians you think things will be better for workers without unions? Is that what you're saying?

Have you thought about how you'd be doing if there were no unions? If so, please share your thoughts with us.