Union Card Bill Bringing on Bullies?

[thanatos144]

I have worked in factories most of my adult life I have worked union and non union. Non union jobs are better cause at least they are not sucking my wages for me so they can funnel it in to liberal campaigns and undermining me trying to earn a living.

 

[DiveCon]

People get angry that American companies are outsourcing. Why do you suppose they do that? UNIONS, thats why. Unions aren't God's angels sent to save the world, unions are greedy demanding groups of ever growing birds with their mouths open, squawking " feed me, FEEEEEEED ME!!"

They're outsoursing because THEY CAN.

Get off you knees, slave.

physician, heal thyself

 

[raceright]

Been watching this post to see if anyone has been both a Union
employee and Union Business owner---Have not noticed this being the case.. So in the 60's I was a union worker and in the 70's
became a business owner in the same field but non Union.
As time went by (20 years or so) I had the company sign a collective bargaining agreement. Figured I would be hiring skilled people similar to what I remembered union workers were in the 60's
Well that was a mistake and the union told me it would take time to
go Thur the LIST till I found the better people (no discount was given for having to use sub standard people)

True unions keep the workers wage up and make sure there is benefits but my non union shop also had that.
After several years and waisting several hundred thousand dollars we found enough good people to be profitable but was then hit with something I never would have believed. While talking to new customers I would say we are a union Company there response
OH SHIT NOW THIS JOB WILL NEVER GET DONE.
Floored me I had to sign contingency agreements with penalties if not completed on time..
I thought bragging that we were union was an added sales tool wrong wrong so now I do not mention union unless asked.

We are profitable in the New York area but I just keep and eye out waiting for NYC to turn into Detroit as soon as it looks like thats going to happen see ya NY

 

[thanatos144]

Been watching this post to see if anyone has been both a Union
employee and Union Business owner---Have not noticed this being the case.. So in the 60's I was a union worker and in the 70's
became a business owner in the same field but non Union.
As time went by (20 years or so) I had the company sign a collective bargaining agreement. Figured I would be hiring skilled people similar to what I remembered union workers were in the 60's
Well that was a mistake and the union told me it would take time to
go Thur the LIST till I found the better people (no discount was given for having to use sub standard people)

True unions keep the workers wage up and make sure there is benefits but my non union shop also had that.
After several years and waisting several hundred thousand dollars we found enough good people to be profitable but was then hit with something I never would have believed. While talking to new customers I would say we are a union Company there response
OH SHIT NOW THIS JOB WILL NEVER GET DONE.
Floored me I had to sign contingency agreements with penalties if not completed on time..
I thought bragging that we were union was an added sales tool wrong wrong so now I do not mention union unless asked.

We are profitable in the New York area but I just keep and eye out waiting for NYC to turn into Detroit as soon as it looks like thats going to happen see ya NY

it is not just Detroit it is the whole state. the UAW has sucked us dry.

 

[Diuretic]

meh, they pull number out of their ass

i guess

cause no one could ever live on minimum wage for very long
not if they had a family to support

minimum wage jobs are supposed to be either teens working part time or entry level no skill jobs

They've probably got a bunch of statisticians working for them I suppose. Minimum wage seems to me to be the minimum required to keep body and soul together. I don't know how it works there and the only reference I have is our own system of industrial relations so I'm a bit stymied. Anyway thanks for the info.

 

[Diuretic]

If unions are so awsome why do the need to intimidate people to join doyathink?

Fair question. There's no place for intimidation. But there is a place, as I understand how it operates in the US, for advocacy. I've seen some materials from the AFL-CIO on recruiting (admittedly some years ago) but while there was a lot of material on advocacy there was nothing there about intimidation, as you would expect. If an organiser is using intimidation then they need to be removed from the campaign. But one person's "intimidation" might well be another's "advocacy".

I used to be a member of the AFL-CIO, and by Wisconsin law I was supposed to have a choice as to whether or not to join. But if I wanted the job, I had to join the union. This was accepted even though everyone knew it was against the law. One person just wasn't going to do squat to change it. But, I did tell them, in writing, to NOT use my union dues towards ANY democrat campaigns. Pissed them off but, they pissed me off forcing me to join their stinking union.

Todays unions aren't much different from any other gang of crocked thugs, which includes our government. Ta' hell with little people. It's all about those at the top getting richer, come hell or high water.

Where I am people who don't want to join a union can refuse and they can't be denied a job. They do have some statutory rights such as registering as a conscientious objector (really) and if they wish they can send the amount of their union dues to a charity. The only unions here that tried the no ticket no start were militant building unions and they've dropped the attitude because they had to. I'm extremely pro-union for various reasons but I don't support compulsory unionism (for various reasons). I definitely believe in democratic control of the union by its members, I despise careerism and croneyism in unions, that corrupts them.

 

[DiveCon]

Fair question. There's no place for intimidation. But there is a place, as I understand how it operates in the US, for advocacy. I've seen some materials from the AFL-CIO on recruiting (admittedly some years ago) but while there was a lot of material on advocacy there was nothing there about intimidation, as you would expect. If an organiser is using intimidation then they need to be removed from the campaign. But one person's "intimidation" might well be another's "advocacy".

I used to be a member of the AFL-CIO, and by Wisconsin law I was supposed to have a choice as to whether or not to join. But if I wanted the job, I had to join the union. This was accepted even though everyone knew it was against the law. One person just wasn't going to do squat to change it. But, I did tell them, in writing, to NOT use my union dues towards ANY democrat campaigns. Pissed them off but, they pissed me off forcing me to join their stinking union.

Todays unions aren't much different from any other gang of crocked thugs, which includes our government. Ta' hell with little people. It's all about those at the top getting richer, come hell or high water.

Where I am people who don't want to join a union can refuse and they can't be denied a job. They do have some statutory rights such as registering as a conscientious objector (really) and if they wish they can send the amount of their union dues to a charity. The only unions here that tried the no ticket no start were militant building unions and they've dropped the attitude because they had to. I'm extremely pro-union for various reasons but I don't support compulsory unionism (for various reasons). I definitely believe in democratic control of the union by its members, I despise careerism and croneyism in unions, that corrupts them.

ever hear of a closed shop, you cant work there unless you join the union

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretec --
Do not agree that far-left ideology in the union leadership has been stamped out. Will cite one example: the dock worker's union in San Francisco (which Pelosi has heavily supported in the past). If one researches this from both political sides it is hard to deny. What I will grant is that they have done a very good job in covering it up.

Right now they are more concerned about survival. In my view that will change with card check. That is the point of my post.

That's because we sent you Harry Bridges

Harry Bridges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd sooner a union have a leftist ideology and support its members rather than have a bunch of right-wing careerists with plush offices who feel entitlted to pay themselves huge wages, give themselves flash cars and swan around with the big end of town pissing the members' money up against the wall.

 

[Diuretic]

I used to be a member of the AFL-CIO, and by Wisconsin law I was supposed to have a choice as to whether or not to join. But if I wanted the job, I had to join the union. This was accepted even though everyone knew it was against the law. One person just wasn't going to do squat to change it. But, I did tell them, in writing, to NOT use my union dues towards ANY democrat campaigns. Pissed them off but, they pissed me off forcing me to join their stinking union.

Todays unions aren't much different from any other gang of crocked thugs, which includes our government. Ta' hell with little people. It's all about those at the top getting richer, come hell or high water.

Where I am people who don't want to join a union can refuse and they can't be denied a job. They do have some statutory rights such as registering as a conscientious objector (really) and if they wish they can send the amount of their union dues to a charity. The only unions here that tried the no ticket no start were militant building unions and they've dropped the attitude because they had to. I'm extremely pro-union for various reasons but I don't support compulsory unionism (for various reasons). I definitely believe in democratic control of the union by its members, I despise careerism and croneyism in unions, that corrupts them.

ever hear of a closed shop, you cant work there unless you join the union

Yes, I'm familiar with it - illegal here in all jurisdictions (and ours is at federal and state level in terms of industrial relations law).

 

[DiveCon]

Where I am people who don't want to join a union can refuse and they can't be denied a job. They do have some statutory rights such as registering as a conscientious objector (really) and if they wish they can send the amount of their union dues to a charity. The only unions here that tried the no ticket no start were militant building unions and they've dropped the attitude because they had to. I'm extremely pro-union for various reasons but I don't support compulsory unionism (for various reasons). I definitely believe in democratic control of the union by its members, I despise careerism and croneyism in unions, that corrupts them.

ever hear of a closed shop, you cant work there unless you join the union

Yes, I'm familiar with it - illegal here in all jurisdictions (and ours is at federal and state level in terms of industrial relations law).

its not here
except in a few states where they passed a law called "the right to work"
there having closed shops is illegal
but in some industries, they still get away with it

 

[Diuretic]

ever hear of a closed shop, you cant work there unless you join the union

Yes, I'm familiar with it - illegal here in all jurisdictions (and ours is at federal and state level in terms of industrial relations law).

its not here
except in a few states where they passed a law called "the right to work"
there having closed shops is illegal
but in some industries, they still get away with it

I had a look at those "right to work" laws - misnomer if I ever saw one - in Tx and New Mexico a few years ago. It struck me that the employee had virtually no rights, that's an abominable situation. But closed shops should be illegal eveywhere. One of the reasons I don't like the idea is that it makes a union lazy. I want my union to be on the ball, not being able to sit back and watch members sign up simply because they want a job.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, I'm familiar with it - illegal here in all jurisdictions (and ours is at federal and state level in terms of industrial relations law).

its not here
except in a few states where they passed a law called "the right to work"
there having closed shops is illegal
but in some industries, they still get away with it

I had a look at those "right to work" laws - misnomer if I ever saw one - in Tx and New Mexico a few years ago. It struck me that the employee had virtually no rights, that's an abominable situation. But closed shops should be illegal eveywhere. One of the reasons I don't like the idea is that it makes a union lazy. I want my union to be on the ball, not being able to sit back and watch members sign up simply because they want a job.

the unions also dont police their members
they really need to help get rid of those workers that make them look bad, rather than protecting them

 

[Diuretic]

the unions also dont police their members
they really need to help get rid of those workers that make them look bad, rather than protecting them

I keep reading that a lot. I don't know how powerful US unions are in protecting incompetent or just plain bad workers but it seems that there might be a need for some balance. An employer shouldn't have to keep on an incompetent worker or a bad worker but before they get rid of them there should be some sort of corrective process. However, having said that, even here whch Americans would call a union-dominated economy (not now it's not but unions are still fairly influential), any employer has the right, in certain circumstances, to summarily dismiss an employee but they must have firm grounds to do so.

 

[DiveCon]

the unions also dont police their members
they really need to help get rid of those workers that make them look bad, rather than protecting them

I keep reading that a lot. I don't know how powerful US unions are in protecting incompetent or just plain bad workers but it seems that there might be a need for some balance. An employer shouldn't have to keep on an incompetent worker or a bad worker but before they get rid of them there should be some sort of corrective process. However, having said that, even here whch Americans would call a union-dominated economy (not now it's not but unions are still fairly influential), any employer has the right, in certain circumstances, to summarily dismiss an employee but they must have firm grounds to do so.

the levels you have to go through to fire someone in a "closed shop" are ridiculous

 

[Diuretic]

the unions also dont police their members
they really need to help get rid of those workers that make them look bad, rather than protecting them

I keep reading that a lot. I don't know how powerful US unions are in protecting incompetent or just plain bad workers but it seems that there might be a need for some balance. An employer shouldn't have to keep on an incompetent worker or a bad worker but before they get rid of them there should be some sort of corrective process. However, having said that, even here whch Americans would call a union-dominated economy (not now it's not but unions are still fairly influential), any employer has the right, in certain circumstances, to summarily dismiss an employee but they must have firm grounds to do so.

the levels you have to go through to fire someone in a "closed shop" are ridiculous

Needs to be fixed then, doesn't help anyone. A union should make sure its member receives due process but it shouldn't obstruct a fair and reasonable dismissal.

 

[DiveCon]

I keep reading that a lot. I don't know how powerful US unions are in protecting incompetent or just plain bad workers but it seems that there might be a need for some balance. An employer shouldn't have to keep on an incompetent worker or a bad worker but before they get rid of them there should be some sort of corrective process. However, having said that, even here whch Americans would call a union-dominated economy (not now it's not but unions are still fairly influential), any employer has the right, in certain circumstances, to summarily dismiss an employee but they must have firm grounds to do so.

the levels you have to go through to fire someone in a "closed shop" are ridiculous

Needs to be fixed then, doesn't help anyone. A union should make sure its member receives due process but it shouldn't obstruct a fair and reasonable dismissal.

it hasnt been that way for over 40 years in this country
thats why people complain about the unions
they try to control everything in the company
and when they are not the ones putting anything at risk in the company, they are overstepping their bounds

 

[garyd]

There is no such thing as a Union with right wing people running it, Di. Find me a Union that ever donated a dime to Republicans or other rightwingers. Without the Unions and the trial lawyers the Dems would be begging for money.

Edit they out source because they have to to make anything and stay in business. And at least half of outsourcing never leaves the US. For instance GM's single biggest out sourcing project since 2000 was when they gave another company rights to the employees cafeteria. Guess what no one is flying food in from Mexico or India...

By the way unless you are a total waste of space and given your attitude you almost certainly are in a production environment The problem the company has isn't what you receive on your pay check but what it cost them to have you on the pay roll that never shows up on your check.

 

[Diuretic]

the levels you have to go through to fire someone in a "closed shop" are ridiculous

Needs to be fixed then, doesn't help anyone. A union should make sure its member receives due process but it shouldn't obstruct a fair and reasonable dismissal.

it hasnt been that way for over 40 years in this country
thats why people complain about the unions
they try to control everything in the company
and when they are not the ones putting anything at risk in the company, they are overstepping their bounds

I did a collective bargaining course in Austin a few years ago. The central point was that the employer's interests do coincide at one point with the employee's interests - this was part of the session where the financial disclosures were on teh table - it was that there is no interest in the employees forcing the company out of business.

 

[Diuretic]

There is no such thing as a Union with right wing people running it, Di. Find me a Union that ever donated a dime to Republicans or other rightwingers. Without the Unions and the trial lawyers the Dems would be begging for money.

Edit they out source because they have to to make anything and stay in business. And at least half of outsourcing never leaves the US. For instance GM's single biggest out sourcing project since 2000 was when they gave another company rights to the employees cafeteria. Guess what no one is flying food in from Mexico or India...

By the way unless you are a total waste of space and given your attitude you almost certainly are in a production environment The problem the company has isn't what you receive on your pay check but what it cost them to have you on the pay roll that never shows up on your check.

I'll accept your point about political leanings.

The additional costs of an employee should be know to the union, they should know if a claim is going to put pressure on the company. And they might even want to consider ways of alleviating that pressure while looking after the interests of the employees. The symbiotic relationship can't be overlooked. Sorry, I mean it shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[thanatos144]

Unions are not for business they are to Marxist for them to be.