Striking Union Workers Hurl Racial Epithets

[FactFinder]

Simple..

When you speak for the masses, ones individuality no longer becomes a factor.

Now whereas that may sound like a good thing, when it comes to ones career it is not.

If you work for a unionized company and you have a differential that would warrant an advancement in your career, it becomes meaningless.

If employee A uses all of his sick days (even though he was not sick) and employee B uses none of his sick days (even though he had a sore throat a couple of times) and yet they both get the exact same raise, how many sick days do you think employee B will use next year?

Unions have created an environment where the worker strives toi work no harder than the least acceptable by contract.

It is not good for the business and it is not good for the employee with a good work ethic.

Unions were necessary to ensure safe working environments....now we have OSHA and HR laws to do that.

I believe what you're saying is working in a union shop suppresses the need for or opportunity to demonstrate individual merit.

If I'm right, that's true. And that is a difficult circumstance for those who are capable of exceptional performance but such individuals are the exception, not the rule. And having given this matter some thought I've come to this conclusion.

Suppose one works in a union shop where the hourly wage is $20 but union rules impede earning a raise for individual merit. A likely alternative circumstance is one works in a non-union shop for $5 an hour but individual merit results in a $15 an hour raise.

A second alternative is for one's exceptional abilities to propel one to a management level position where union concerns are not an impediment.

That example does not even rise to the level of ridiculous.
First, unless one is a waitstaffer in a restaurant, $5 is illegal. So let's cut that bullshit out of the equation.
Next, you cannot claim to come to conclusion then in the very next sentence start with "suppose".
I submit you've given this no thought at all.
You simply came up with a scenario that supports your point of view. That is no one in a union shop should ever be rewarded with higher pay for exemplary work ahead of others in the group.
That very premise breeds mediocrity. It sets up a work environment where good people are bitter because the slackers get the same pay and benefits as the best workers.
It is unfortunate but true that most union workers can get much more from themselves on the job but refuse to do so because the people that have learned how to game the system and simply show up to collect their check. Quite frankly businesses do not have time for this drama. Neither do the American people.

Since union shops are but 7% of the workforce, little harm done. And most self respecting union workers won't put up with slackers for long. Someone has to get the work done. They do set a standard, a bar of what fair treatment is. They serve a useful function. I have not been in a union shop since I was a teen but I do see how they make things better for all of us. and.. if you ask front office mgmt how they feel about their workers after they reach a settllement most would agree that their conscience is good. They don't have to 2nd guess themselves on whether fairness is in play cause the union settled it for them.

 

[daveman]

SCAB WORKERS and the management that hires them deserves no sympathy.

What gives a union member more right to work than a non-union member?

I have yet to hear a union drone answer this question.

Still no answers.

Union drones are pussies.

 

[MikeK]

Simple..

When you speak for the masses, ones individuality no longer becomes a factor.

Now whereas that may sound like a good thing, when it comes to ones career it is not.

If you work for a unionized company and you have a differential that would warrant an advancement in your career, it becomes meaningless.

If employee A uses all of his sick days (even though he was not sick) and employee B uses none of his sick days (even though he had a sore throat a couple of times) and yet they both get the exact same raise, how many sick days do you think employee B will use next year?

Unions have created an environment where the worker strives toi work no harder than the least acceptable by contract.

It is not good for the business and it is not good for the employee with a good work ethic.

Unions were necessary to ensure safe working environments....now we have OSHA and HR laws to do that.

I believe what you're saying is working in a union shop suppresses the need for or opportunity to demonstrate individual merit.

If I'm right, that's true. And that is a difficult circumstance for those who are capable of exceptional performance but such individuals are the exception, not the rule. And having given this matter some thought I've come to this conclusion.

Suppose one works in a union shop where the hourly wage is $20 but union rules impede earning a raise for individual merit. A likely alternative circumstance is one works in a non-union shop for $5 an hour but individual merit results in a $15 an hour raise.

A second alternative is for one's exceptional abilities to propel one to a management level position where union concerns are not an impediment.

That example does not even rise to the level of ridiculous.
First, unless one is a waitstaffer in a restaurant, $5 is illegal. So let's cut that bullshit out of the equation.

The example I presented is a hypothesis, not "bullshit." If you'd be more comfortable, then raise my $5 example to $7.50 at bottom and $22.50 at top. I don't mind.

Next, you cannot claim to come to conclusion then in the very next sentence start with "suppose".

Again, hypothetical. And in spite of what you apparently believe there are no rules against presenting hypothetical conclusions as examples.

I submit you've given this no thought at all.

You simply came up with a scenario that supports your point of view. That is no one in a union shop should ever be rewarded with higher pay for exemplary work ahead of others in the group.

That isn't my point of view. That is reality. And there is a good reason for it.

That very premise breeds mediocrity.

That seems a reasonable presumption but the level of productivity and economic growth between the late '40s and early '80s, which were the greatest in our history, were also the era when unions were most active and influential. How do you account for that?

It sets up a work environment where good people are bitter because the slackers get the same pay and benefits as the best workers.

There always will be a percentage of slackers and a percentage of workers with exceptional potential. But both categories are nominal. Do you believe the interests of the majority should be modified or sacrificed to accommodate those of a tiny minority?

It is unfortunate but true that most union workers can get much more from themselves on the job but refuse to do so because the people that have learned how to game the system and simply show up to collect their check. Quite frankly businesses do not have time for this drama. Neither do the American people.

I can offer an example of what you are talking about:

All of the routes served by the UPS package delivery sation where my son-in-law worked are repeatedly time-studied, meaning management knows within an established approximate how long it takes to service a given number of stops while working at an acceptable pace, i.e., neither plodding nor working at exhaustive speed. He now drives a trailer on airport runs, which also are time-studied but my understanding is the drivers are satisfied with their pay and benefits and for the most part are prepared to "give the boss a day's work for a day's pay."

I've also been told that the Union Shop Stewards in those UPS stations will not defend a driver who is a known troublemaker -- and that is a critically important factor. If an employee is right the union will back him 100%. If he's recalcitrant he's on his own. And while I'm sure there are situations in which a union will back an employee regardless of circumstances, I'm equally sure such examples are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I believe what you're saying is working in a union shop suppresses the need for or opportunity to demonstrate individual merit.

If I'm right, that's true. And that is a difficult circumstance for those who are capable of exceptional performance but such individuals are the exception, not the rule. And having given this matter some thought I've come to this conclusion.

Suppose one works in a union shop where the hourly wage is $20 but union rules impede earning a raise for individual merit. A likely alternative circumstance is one works in a non-union shop for $5 an hour but individual merit results in a $15 an hour raise.

A second alternative is for one's exceptional abilities to propel one to a management level position where union concerns are not an impediment.

That example does not even rise to the level of ridiculous.
First, unless one is a waitstaffer in a restaurant, $5 is illegal. So let's cut that bullshit out of the equation.
Next, you cannot claim to come to conclusion then in the very next sentence start with "suppose".
I submit you've given this no thought at all.
You simply came up with a scenario that supports your point of view. That is no one in a union shop should ever be rewarded with higher pay for exemplary work ahead of others in the group.
That very premise breeds mediocrity. It sets up a work environment where good people are bitter because the slackers get the same pay and benefits as the best workers.
It is unfortunate but true that most union workers can get much more from themselves on the job but refuse to do so because the people that have learned how to game the system and simply show up to collect their check. Quite frankly businesses do not have time for this drama. Neither do the American people.

Since union shops are but 7% of the workforce, little harm done. And most self respecting union workers won't put up with slackers for long. Someone has to get the work done. They do set a standard, a bar of what fair treatment is. They serve a useful function. I have not been in a union shop since I was a teen but I do see how they make things better for all of us. and.. if you ask front office mgmt how they feel about their workers after they reach a settllement most would agree that their conscience is good. They don't have to 2nd guess themselves on whether fairness is in play cause the union settled it for them.

You claim the existence of unions make things better for all of us.
Ok, please offer up examples.
The past is irrelevant. The 1930's don;t count here.
I want to know what unions do for PRESENT DAY workers.
The very fact that unions represent such a small percentage of private sector workers, it would impossible to conclude that the existence of unions makes things better for all of us....
You are free to provide those examples though.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I believe what you're saying is working in a union shop suppresses the need for or opportunity to demonstrate individual merit.

If I'm right, that's true. And that is a difficult circumstance for those who are capable of exceptional performance but such individuals are the exception, not the rule. And having given this matter some thought I've come to this conclusion.

Suppose one works in a union shop where the hourly wage is $20 but union rules impede earning a raise for individual merit. A likely alternative circumstance is one works in a non-union shop for $5 an hour but individual merit results in a $15 an hour raise.

A second alternative is for one's exceptional abilities to propel one to a management level position where union concerns are not an impediment.

That example does not even rise to the level of ridiculous.
First, unless one is a waitstaffer in a restaurant, $5 is illegal. So let's cut that bullshit out of the equation.

The example I presented is a hypothesis, not "bullshit." If you'd be more comfortable, then raise my $5 example to $7.50 at bottom and $22.50 at top. I don't mind.


Again, hypothetical. And in spite of what you apparently believe there are no rules against presenting hypothetical conclusions as examples.


That isn't my point of view. That is reality. And there is a good reason for it.


That seems a reasonable presumption but the level of productivity and economic growth between the late '40s and early '80s, which were the greatest in our history, were also the era when unions were most active and influential. How do you account for that?

It sets up a work environment where good people are bitter because the slackers get the same pay and benefits as the best workers.

There always will be a percentage of slackers and a percentage of workers with exceptional potential. But both categories are nominal. Do you believe the interests of the majority should be modified or sacrificed to accommodate those of a tiny minority?

It is unfortunate but true that most union workers can get much more from themselves on the job but refuse to do so because the people that have learned how to game the system and simply show up to collect their check. Quite frankly businesses do not have time for this drama. Neither do the American people.

I can offer an example of what you are talking about:

All of the routes served by the UPS package delivery sation where my son-in-law worked are repeatedly time-studied, meaning management knows within an established approximate how long it takes to service a given number of stops while working at an acceptable pace, i.e., neither plodding nor working at exhaustive speed. He now drives a trailer on airport runs, which also are time-studied but my understanding is the drivers are satisfied with their pay and benefits and for the most part are prepared to "give the boss a day's work for a day's pay."

I've also been told that the Union Shop Stewards in those UPS stations will not defend a driver who is a known troublemaker -- and that is a critically important factor. If an employee is right the union will back him 100%. If he's recalcitrant he's on his own. And while I'm sure there are situations in which a union will back an employee regardless of circumstances, I'm equally sure such examples are the exception rather than the rule.

Ahh. Look, I worked for UPS. So did a very good friend of mine. She worked there 17 years . We were both package car drivers.
The Teamsters "represented" us. Well sort of. The union is there at UPS because UPS tolerates the union. And as such , normal work rules that may apply at other trucking outfits do not apply at UPS. That company has it's own set of rules. And the Teamsters deals with those rules.
Every UPS route is right down to the minute. But there are guys that still game the system.
UPS' philosophy is " the faster the route is covered, the more stops they place on the route.
Since no PC driver wants their route to get bigger, they play it very smart. They make sure when they get back to the center they clock out right at 8 hours.
The driver that did my in-laws route used to "hide" for a couple of ours each day so that they wouldn't add to his route.
Look, UPS is a very poor example here.
Trust me. If UPS wanted the Teamsters out, they could get rid of them.
Fed EX has been approached many times. That company tales very good care of their workers for the express purpose of keeping unions out.
Toyota's US based plants as do BMW and Mercedes the same. The pay is essentially the same or in some cases higher. The per hour cost per worker is MUCH lower.

 

[MikeK]

Ahh. Look, I worked for UPS. So did a very good friend of mine. She worked there 17 years . We were both package car drivers.
The Teamsters "represented" us. Well sort of. The union is there at UPS because UPS tolerates the union. And as such , normal work rules that may apply at other trucking outfits do not apply at UPS. That company has it's own set of rules. And the Teamsters deals with those rules.
Every UPS route is right down to the minute. But there are guys that still game the system.
UPS' philosophy is " the faster the route is covered, the more stops they place on the route.
Since no PC driver wants their route to get bigger, they play it very smart. They make sure when they get back to the center they clock out right at 8 hours.
The driver that did my in-laws route used to "hide" for a couple of ours each day so that they wouldn't add to his route.
Look, UPS is a very poor example here.
Trust me. If UPS wanted the Teamsters out, they could get rid of them.
Fed EX has been approached many times. That company tales very good care of their workers for the express purpose of keeping unions out.
Toyota's US based plants as do BMW and Mercedes the same. The pay is essentially the same or in some cases higher. The per hour cost per worker is MUCH lower.

Everything I've said about UPS I learned from my son-in-law who has worked there for over twenty years. He started out sorting packages on the night shift, went from that to loading trucks, then became a route driver. Now he drives a trailer on airport runs, a choice job with top pay. He averages ten to twelve hours overtime a week and, thanks to the union, he does very well.

He like his job, he likes the company and he thinks the Teamsters is a great union. He knows that if not for that union he wouldn't be making anywhere near the kind of money he makes, nor would he have have the premium benefits. Talking with him about his job has a lot to do with my respect for unions and my interest in this subject.

 

[MikeK]

You claim the existence of unions make things better for all of us.
Ok, please offer up examples.

You've already done that yourself in the following quote from an earlier message:

"Fed EX has been approached many times. That company takes very good care of their workers for the express purpose of keeping unions out.
Toyota's US based plants as do BMW and Mercedes the same. The pay is essentially the same or in some cases higher. The per hour cost per worker is MUCH lower."

Many, many companies avoid having their employees become unionized by treating them as well as union employees are treated. It is these companies' fear of unions that serves the interests of their employees.

The past is irrelevant. The 1930's don;t count here.

Of course it does. Were it not for the union movement the condition of the working class in America would rival that of Mexico.

I want to know what unions do for PRESENT DAY workers.

The very fact that unions represent such a small percentage of private sector workers, it would impossible to conclude that the existence of unions makes things better for all of us....

It may be said that the effect of unions on the American workplace is couched in the adage, A rising tide raises all boats.

You are free to provide those examples though.

Again; you've already done that. You obviously understand the situation but for some reason you harbor a bitterness toward unions and denial about their positive aspect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ahh. Look, I worked for UPS. So did a very good friend of mine. She worked there 17 years . We were both package car drivers.
The Teamsters "represented" us. Well sort of. The union is there at UPS because UPS tolerates the union. And as such , normal work rules that may apply at other trucking outfits do not apply at UPS. That company has it's own set of rules. And the Teamsters deals with those rules.
Every UPS route is right down to the minute. But there are guys that still game the system.
UPS' philosophy is " the faster the route is covered, the more stops they place on the route.
Since no PC driver wants their route to get bigger, they play it very smart. They make sure when they get back to the center they clock out right at 8 hours.
The driver that did my in-laws route used to "hide" for a couple of ours each day so that they wouldn't add to his route.
Look, UPS is a very poor example here.
Trust me. If UPS wanted the Teamsters out, they could get rid of them.
Fed EX has been approached many times. That company tales very good care of their workers for the express purpose of keeping unions out.
Toyota's US based plants as do BMW and Mercedes the same. The pay is essentially the same or in some cases higher. The per hour cost per worker is MUCH lower.

Everything I've said about UPS I learned from my son-in-law who has worked there for over twenty years. He started out sorting packages on the night shift, went from that to loading trucks, then became a route driver. Now he drives a trailer on airport runs, a choice job with top pay. He averages ten to twelve hours overtime a week and, thanks to the union, he does very well.

He like his job, he likes the company and he thinks the Teamsters is a great union. He knows that if not for that union he wouldn't be making anywhere near the kind of money he makes, nor would he have have the premium benefits. Talking with him about his job has a lot to do with my respect for unions and my interest in this subject.

Yeah well I WORKED THERE.....You did not. So your info is second hand and thus lack the same amount of credibility mine does.
As far as your so-in-law, that is how he "feels"..
He's not making any more money than the non-union Fed Ex trailer driver.
Guess what......Fed Ex people have NEVER gone on strike because they do not need to. They are well compensated. Can't say the same about UPS....And EVERY TIME UPS went on strike, the union had to make concessions.
Please. This is all very much pointless. Unions are on their way out. 20 years ago roughly 15% of private sector workers were unionized. That has tumbled by 50% ....What's that tell ya?
Verizon's 45k union people went on strike the first Monday this past August. The union placed press releases that the workers were in it for the long haul...Guess what? The strike ended a week later. Why? Because the company decided to play hardball. The work was getting done anyway. So the union with tail between their legs sent their people back to work.....Oh.....The 45,000 workers that are union make up about 1/3rd of Verizon's total workforce. Shit....This is too easy.

 

[The Gadfly]

I am okay with whatever a labor union needs to do to prevent its being undermined and eliminated by the introduction of scabs.

So how about this scenario, a friend of mine used to work as the regional director of security for Safeway and when they had a strike he caught a union woker who had sabotaged a tractor trailer rig so that the trailer would pull free while driving down the road. Are you OK with that?

And there are some interesting stories of strikebreakers murdering the wives and children of striking mine workers in West Virginia. If you'd like to know the details Google up info on The Matewan Massacre. The bottom line in this argument is no unions have ever perpetrated the amount or the kind of violence on union busters as has collectively and historically been perpetrated against union members in the history of labor conflicts in America.

How many early Teamsters were crippled and beaten to death by company goons before Jimmy Hoffa made a deal with the devil and turned it around by bringing the Mafia in? Not a good thing, but necessary. If he hadn't done it the union movement might have been strangled in its crib and today's American worker would be on the same pay and benefit level as those in Mexico.

But I'm sure you don't believe all this -- or would rather not believe it.

So much for anecdotes.

And this little revelation, right here, is just one of many reasons so many of us despise the unions-organized racketeering and rampant corruption. Any means to an end, huh, Mike? Whatever works for the sacred UNION; to hell with anyone else's rights, to hell with the laws of the country (except for the ones that help the union, of course!) to hell with the rights of your fellow Americans to have an open shop, or work without having to associate with a criminal enterprise; to hell with everyone, who doesn't share your far-left, Bolshevik, entitlement mentality; to hell with those who actually provide the jobs; in fact, to hell with the country, unless your species is running it, completely, and stomping all over the rights of the rest of us! THAT IS THE TRUTH, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT; which is why you hide behind the history of eighty years ago, why you lie, why you make every phony excuse for violence under the sun, and why, when called on it, you have nothing but ad hominem attacks to reply with.

Well, I don't suppose we can expect any better, from a man who confuses self-discipline with "timidity", and thinks ALL the rest of us are incapable of defending ourselves from union thugs. The last time I pointed out to you that after fighting a war against armed, trained, enemy troops, I sure as hell have no fear of any common street punk, you called me a "manic drunkard". Don't make me laugh, Bolshevik; I have been in situations that would make any of your-oh-so-tough thugs wet themselves and cry like little babies, and THERE ARE PLENTY MORE AMERICANS LIKE ME! The difference is, we don't start trouble, but we can sure as hell finish the trouble someone else starts!

America, as a whole, is sick and damn tired of union crime and union violence; not because we are "afraid" of it, but because your unions' assaults on our fellow citizens anger us; keep believing otherwise; keep believing that your ever-shrinking union ranks can control or intimidate the rest of this nation, and one day, some REAL Americans are going to wipe the streets with the mangled carcasses of what's left of your ugly little "movement", and that's a promise!

Now, loser, since you have demonstrated your foolishness for all to see, why don't you make good on your earlier promise not to discuss this with us any more, and go pick up your marbles and go home to sulk, read your propaganda, and convince yourself how righteous you are. Stay in character, like a mangy whipped cur, and slink off whimpering, with your chewed tail tucked between your legs to cover your missing sack. Alternatively, you can stay in here, and get chewed on some more; I really do not care, and neither I suspect, does anyone else.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So how about this scenario, a friend of mine used to work as the regional director of security for Safeway and when they had a strike he caught a union woker who had sabotaged a tractor trailer rig so that the trailer would pull free while driving down the road. Are you OK with that?

And there are some interesting stories of strikebreakers murdering the wives and children of striking mine workers in West Virginia. If you'd like to know the details Google up info on The Matewan Massacre. The bottom line in this argument is no unions have ever perpetrated the amount or the kind of violence on union busters as has collectively and historically been perpetrated against union members in the history of labor conflicts in America.

How many early Teamsters were crippled and beaten to death by company goons before Jimmy Hoffa made a deal with the devil and turned it around by bringing the Mafia in? Not a good thing, but necessary. If he hadn't done it the union movement might have been strangled in its crib and today's American worker would be on the same pay and benefit level as those in Mexico.

But I'm sure you don't believe all this -- or would rather not believe it.

So much for anecdotes.

And this little revelation, right here, is just one of many reasons so many of us despise the unions-organized racketeering and rampant corruption. Any means to an end, huh, Mike? Whatever works for the sacred UNION; to hell with anyone else's rights, to hell with the laws of the country (except for the ones that help the union, of course!) to hell with the rights of your fellow Americans to have an open shop, or work without having to associate with a criminal enterprise; to hell with everyone, who doesn't share your far-left, Bolshevik, entitlement mentality; to hell with those who actually provide the jobs; in fact, to hell with the country, unless your species is running it, completely, and stomping all over the rights of the rest of us! THAT IS THE TRUTH, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT; which is why you hide behind the history of eighty years ago, why you lie, why you make every phony excuse for violence under the sun, and why, when called on it, you have nothing but ad hominem attacks to reply with.

Well, I don't suppose we can expect any better, from a man who confuses self-discipline with "timidity", and thinks ALL the rest of us are incapable of defending ourselves from union thugs. The last time I pointed out to you that after fighting a war against armed, trained, enemy troops, I sure as hell have no fear of any common street punk, you called me a "manic drunkard". Don't make me laugh, Bolshevik; I have been in situations that would make any of your-oh-so-tough thugs wet themselves and cry like little babies, and THERE ARE PLENTY MORE AMERICANS LIKE ME! The difference is, we don't start trouble, but we can sure as hell finish the trouble someone else starts!

America, as a whole, is sick and damn tired of union crime and union violence; not because we are "afraid" of it, but because your unions' assaults on our fellow citizens anger us; keep believing otherwise; keep believing that your ever-shrinking union ranks can control or intimidate the rest of this nation, and one day, some REAL Americans are going to wipe the streets with the mangled carcasses of what's left of your ugly little "movement", and that's a promise!

Now, loser, since you have demonstrated your foolishness for all to see, why don't you make good on your earlier promise not to discuss this with us any more, and go pick up your marbles and go home to sulk, read your propaganda, and convince yourself how righteous you are. Stay in character, like a mangy whipped cur, and slink off whimpering, with your chewed tail tucked between your legs to cover your missing sack. Alternatively, you can stay in here, and get chewed on some more; I really do not care, and neither I suspect, does anyone else.

Man, that post was a clear cut TKO......FYI, I am plus repping you for that