Unions, Strikes, and My Entry Into Local Politics

[Anathema]

Funnily enough, Sun Tran hired quite a few workers during this time, in order to provide as much limited strike service as possible. There were also some of the regular drivers who crossed the picket line and came back to work, because THEY couldn't afford to remain on strike for two months, and because they could see the damage being done to the community.

Sounds like a lousy contract if they were allowed to bring in Scabs.

Also sounds like poor planning by the Union and its members if they were thst hard pressed for cash. My contract is up in roughly 18 months. I'm already putting away "War Funds" in case we have to walk out and my Union will pay about 65% of my after tax paycheck for up to 3 months if we gave to walk out.

 

[Anathema]

another reason unions aren't good for anyone..... except the members.....if they don't get their way they threaten violence on people who WANT to work...

Why eoild a Union be concerned with anyone other than its paying nembers unless it helps the Union out?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I'm already putting away "War Funds" in case we have to walk out and my Union will pay about 65% of my after tax paycheck for up to 3 months if we gave to walk out.

great, planning for liberal violence to get ahead in life !!! Why not go find a job where you have a peaceful voluntary relationship with your employer based on what you both think you're worth??

Should we gang up outside McDonalds and threaten not to buy until they lower the prices of Hamburgers. You're a liberal fascist! Sorry, but its true.

 

[Anathema]

great, planning for liberal violence to get ahead in life !!! Why not go find a job where you have a peaceful voluntary relationship with your employer based on what you both think you're worth??

No. Planning for the potential of a work stoppage due to my employer's well-documented unwillingness to sit down until the last minute and negotiate in good faith. There hasn't been a work stoppage here for more than 25 years, but the company has repeatedly put off bargaining new contracts until the very last moment and relying on extensions to get through negotiations.

As the Steward for my Department I've already been looking at what we need to discuss when we do finally enter into negotiations with the company. On the other hand, I'm sure my boss and his boss (the ones sitting on the other side of the table), probably won't even start considering these things until mere hours or days before we sit down to talk. Then they wonder why nothing gets done in a timely manner when we do sit down.

I've worked as a contractor, a non-union employee and as a union member. I have zero interest in going back to being an employee-at-will. I just want to know what my job is, what the expectations are, and what my compensation will be. IN WRITING. With no questions about what certain language or expectations mean. That's why I have no more interest in at-will employment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No. Planning for the potential of a work stoppage due to my employer's well-documented unwillingness to sit down until the last minute and negotiate in good faith. .

the question is, why be a violent liberal fascist? 90% of Americans work in peaceful non violent relationships. Who can blame your employer for not jumping at the chance to be subjected to your liberal union violence!

Unemployment is high so the govt has no interest in protecting your job at the expense of someone else who would take your job for less pay. Its a nice scam you have from buying off politicians and subverting our democracy!! Good luck in your after life!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no RIGHT to public transportation. At least not in any State Constitution or City Charter I've ever seen. So youve got an uphill battle in front of you.

Who said anything about "rights"? Christ, what IS it with you people?

He is batshit insane and should probably be locked up.

On every level of government, it has been accepted practice to bar certain jobs and industries from strikes in the interests of overall public good. As I believe I pointed out in my OP, this is the case with air traffic controllers, despite there being no "right" to air travel. It is the case with dockworkers, despite there being no "right" to having goods unloaded from ships. It is the case with postal workers, despite there being no "right" to daily mail delivery.

All of these jobs still have strong union representation, they still bargain collectively through their unions, and they all have excellent pay and benefits through those contracts. What they DON'T have is the legal ability to disrupt the orderly functioning of the the community in order to strongarm people out of more money.

Actually, I do not think that dockworkers are barred from striking (though one could make a pretty good case that it would qualify as terrorism under the PATRIOT act).

They may not be now, or they may just do it illegally and not get dinged for it, but I know there have been laws in the past that prohibited it. I also know some states don't allow teachers to strike. It's not unheard-of with jobs that are considered a public necessity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

great, planning for liberal violence to get ahead in life !!! Why not go find a job where you have a peaceful voluntary relationship with your employer based on what you both think you're worth??

No. Planning for the potential of a work stoppage due to my employer's well-documented unwillingness to sit down until the last minute and negotiate in good faith. There hasn't been a work stoppage here for more than 25 years, but the company has repeatedly put off bargaining new contracts until the very last moment and relying on extensions to get through negotiations.

As the Steward for my Department I've already been looking at what we need to discuss when we do finally enter into negotiations with the company. On the other hand, I'm sure my boss and his boss (the ones sitting on the other side of the table), probably won't even start considering these things until mere hours or days before we sit down to talk. Then they wonder why nothing gets done in a timely manner when we do sit down.

I've worked as a contractor, a non-union employee and as a union member. I have zero interest in going back to being an employee-at-will. I just want to know what my job is, what the expectations are, and what my compensation will be. IN WRITING. With no questions about what certain language or expectations mean. That's why I have no more interest in at-will employment.

Who said anything about "going back to at-will"? Are you even reading this thread, or just debating the voices in your head?

Postal workers are barred by federal law from striking, because they are considered essential to public good. They nevertheless have a very strong union, the APWU, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and they get excellent terms in all their contract negotiations, with a whole lot less hemming and hawing about it.

Police officers are barred from striking just about everywhere, but they always have the PBA or local equivalent that bargains hard on their behalf.

There is nothing about saying, "You cannot shut down the city and hold people's lives hostage to your demands" that requires dissolution of union representation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funnily enough, Sun Tran hired quite a few workers during this time, in order to provide as much limited strike service as possible. There were also some of the regular drivers who crossed the picket line and came back to work, because THEY couldn't afford to remain on strike for two months, and because they could see the damage being done to the community.

Sounds like a lousy contract if they were allowed to bring in Scabs.

Also sounds like poor planning by the Union and its members if they were thst hard pressed for cash. My contract is up in roughly 18 months. I'm already putting away "War Funds" in case we have to walk out and my Union will pay about 65% of my after tax paycheck for up to 3 months if we gave to walk out.

Well, see, that's the thing. They based their "righteous" strike on the fact that the contract expired, so there WAS no contract to stop them from hiring people who weren't selfish shitstains. Hoist to their own petard. Must suck.

As to planning, yeah, THAT'S what it was. It couldn't be that the union leadership are the same self-centered, greedy shitstains that their membership is, except writ large. It has to be that they just didn't consider the fact that their members wouldn't get paid while on strike. Uh huh. Sounds plausible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

another reason unions aren't good for anyone..... except the members.....if they don't get their way they threaten violence on people who WANT to work...

Why eoild a Union be concerned with anyone other than its paying nembers unless it helps the Union out?

It's funny how leftists are ALL about how others should sacrifice for "the greater good", but when it's THEIR turn to do so, suddenly they're bewildered by the idea that they should think of anyone but themselves.

Is there any topic on which you scum-suckers aren't enormous hypocrites?

 

[Jarlaxle]

great, planning for liberal violence to get ahead in life !!! Why not go find a job where you have a peaceful voluntary relationship with your employer based on what you both think you're worth??

No. Planning for the potential of a work stoppage due to my employer's well-documented unwillingness to sit down until the last minute and negotiate in good faith. There hasn't been a work stoppage here for more than 25 years, but the company has repeatedly put off bargaining new contracts until the very last moment and relying on extensions to get through negotiations.

As the Steward for my Department I've already been looking at what we need to discuss when we do finally enter into negotiations with the company. On the other hand, I'm sure my boss and his boss (the ones sitting on the other side of the table), probably won't even start considering these things until mere hours or days before we sit down to talk. Then they wonder why nothing gets done in a timely manner when we do sit down.

I've worked as a contractor, a non-union employee and as a union member. I have zero interest in going back to being an employee-at-will. I just want to know what my job is, what the expectations are, and what my compensation will be. IN WRITING. With no questions about what certain language or expectations mean. That's why I have no more interest in at-will employment.

Who said anything about "going back to at-will"? Are you even reading this thread, or just debating the voices in your head?

Postal workers are barred by federal law from striking, because they are considered essential to public good. They nevertheless have a very strong union, the APWU, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and they get excellent terms in all their contract negotiations, with a whole lot less hemming and hawing about it.

Police officers are barred from striking just about everywhere, but they always have the PBA or local equivalent that bargains hard on their behalf.

There is nothing about saying, "You cannot shut down the city and hold people's lives hostage to your demands" that requires dissolution of union representation.

Actually, the simple truth is that public employees should not be permitted to unionize. Even Franklin Roosevelt realized that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

another reason unions aren't good for anyone..... except the members.....if they don't get their way they threaten violence on people who WANT to work...

Why eoild a Union be concerned with anyone other than its paying nembers unless it helps the Union out?

It's funny how leftists are ALL about how others should sacrifice for "the greater good", but when it's THEIR turn to do so, suddenly they're bewildered by the idea that they should think of anyone but themselves.

Is there any topic on which you scum-suckers aren't enormous hypocrites?

He isn't a leftist...just a psycho.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

great, planning for liberal violence to get ahead in life !!! Why not go find a job where you have a peaceful voluntary relationship with your employer based on what you both think you're worth??

No. Planning for the potential of a work stoppage due to my employer's well-documented unwillingness to sit down until the last minute and negotiate in good faith. There hasn't been a work stoppage here for more than 25 years, but the company has repeatedly put off bargaining new contracts until the very last moment and relying on extensions to get through negotiations.

As the Steward for my Department I've already been looking at what we need to discuss when we do finally enter into negotiations with the company. On the other hand, I'm sure my boss and his boss (the ones sitting on the other side of the table), probably won't even start considering these things until mere hours or days before we sit down to talk. Then they wonder why nothing gets done in a timely manner when we do sit down.

I've worked as a contractor, a non-union employee and as a union member. I have zero interest in going back to being an employee-at-will. I just want to know what my job is, what the expectations are, and what my compensation will be. IN WRITING. With no questions about what certain language or expectations mean. That's why I have no more interest in at-will employment.

Who said anything about "going back to at-will"? Are you even reading this thread, or just debating the voices in your head?

Postal workers are barred by federal law from striking, because they are considered essential to public good. They nevertheless have a very strong union, the APWU, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and they get excellent terms in all their contract negotiations, with a whole lot less hemming and hawing about it.

Police officers are barred from striking just about everywhere, but they always have the PBA or local equivalent that bargains hard on their behalf.

There is nothing about saying, "You cannot shut down the city and hold people's lives hostage to your demands" that requires dissolution of union representation.

Actually, the simple truth is that public employees should not be permitted to unionize. Even Franklin Roosevelt realized that.

the simple truth is that private employees should not allowed to unionize either. Either prices are set by the free market or by union violence. Which makes more sense?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are a ******* idiot.

 

[Anathema]

It's funny how leftists are ALL about how others should sacrifice for "the greater good", but when it's THEIR turn to do so, suddenly they're bewildered by the idea that they should think of anyone but themselves.

Like me, these employees are employed by a PRIVATE company that provides a PUBLIC service that the Government should not actually have any involvement with (public transportation and utilities).

Since these are PRIVATE companies "the greater good" is not a consideration.

10 years ago I'd have told you that I would never join a Union. Then I started working for the company I work for now. Within 2 years I was asked to consider helping with a movement to Unionize the Engineering and Design Departments. Initially I declined; until I sat down and really looked at it as logically as I could. At that moment it became clear that I had two choices...... Fight for Unionization or start lookibg for a new job.

I'm very glad I made the choice I did. It's not a perfect situation but it's far better than ehat the other option would have been.

Oh, and I'm a customer of the company I work for, as are most of my co-workers, so there's no point in us "screwing the company or customers". In fact our Union(s) is/are one of the strongest defenders of our customers.

 

[DGS49]

I have worked in labor and management, public and private sectors, and I was briefly a member of Teamsters Local 249.

Unions are entirely appropriate in the private sector, in competitive industries. If a majority of the similarly-situated workers agree, a CBA is worthwhile. OTOH, in public utilities, government (particularly in education), health care and for delivery of essential public services (e.g., mass transit), the "right to strike" has no legitimate place.

It has long been known that in the public sector, the vital interests of the workers, on the one hand, go up against the convenience and comfort of "management," which might even benefit with a too-generous CBA. In the private sector a too-generous CBA might result in the company going bankrupt. The results of public-sector unionism are manifest around the country. Wages and benefits continue to ratchet up regardless of the state of the economy or the revenues coming into government, and Democrat administrations "give away the store," in order to ensure union support in coming elections. The result is public employees who have pay and benefits that exceed all but the most generous employers in the locality, and they have early and generous retirement plans that, in past years, bankrupted every private sector company that had comparable plans. And a compliant Press always downplays the poor retired government workers whose benefits are threatened, never mentioning that that poor worker retired at age 52.

Here in Pennsylvania, 5,000 State Liquor store workers are holding the entire state population hostage, as our intransigent Democrat governor refuses to privatize a perverse, inefficient, failing liquor sales system that dates back to the Prohibition. And the Media REFUSE to acknowledge the fact that the Governor is kissing the government workers' union's ass.

A college professor recently asked his "socialist" students if they would like to implement their chose philosophy in the classroom: He would give every student the same grade as the worst student in the class; they declined. This is what unionism is: every worker gets the same pay as the worst employee in the CBU. It doesn't have to be that way. Professional unions in Europe work hand-in-hand with management to make the companies more competitive and successful. Here the Unions' attitude is, "**** everybody else; we want everything we can get!"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are a ******* idiot.

the simple truth is that private employees should not allowed to unionize either. Either prices are set by the free market or by union violence. Which makes more sense?

 

[Indeependent]

You are a ******* idiot.

the simple truth is that private employees should not allowed to unionize either. Either prices are set by the free market or by union violence. Which makes more sense?

As though CEOs of major corporations don't compare notes at elite BBQs and Banquets; otherwise known as de facto Unions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are a ******* idiot.

the simple truth is that private employees should not allowed to unionize either. Either prices are set by the free market or by union violence. Which makes more sense?

As though CEOs of major corporations don't compare notes at elite BBQs and Banquets; otherwise known as de facto Unions.

dear, comparing notes is meaningless. If they actually engaged in anything like violent union behavior it would be illegal.

Do you understand?

 

[Indeependent]

You are a ******* idiot.

the simple truth is that private employees should not allowed to unionize either. Either prices are set by the free market or by union violence. Which makes more sense?

As though CEOs of major corporations don't compare notes at elite BBQs and Banquets; otherwise known as de facto Unions.

dear, comparing notes is meaningless. If they actually engaged in anything like violent union behavior it would be illegal.

Do you understand?

Dear, that's Ayn Ran's argument for firing someone after interviewing them for 20 hours and they turned down every other offer and eventually lost everything they had.
You see, dear, as long as you don't actually HIT someone, you can do whatever makes you FEEL good.
You get Conservatism now? It's based on Ayn Rand's FEEL GOOD Objective Realism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You get Conservatism now? It's based on Ayn Rand's FEEL GOOD Objective Realism.

100% stupid as always. Aristotle Cicero Locke and Jefferson were long long long before Rand.

See why were are positive that you independent of brains?