one of many reasons I hate labor unions.....
03-04-2009, 03:25 PM
#1
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Emmett, Idaho
Posts: 7,334
03-05-2009, 06:20 AM
#3
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: san antonio, texas
Posts: 1,233
how can there be a union if there is no jobs? now they are nervous
that all that free money is going out the door with job lost. they
has reported that now days unions are not needed, we need to
concentrate on getting new jobs going w/o unions, can u imaginie
gm is losing going down needing more money and in the money
funds go to support the union to go on nice trips for meetings they
could have in their home office with just coffee and dougnuts.
but nooooooooo, lets suck more of the little guy to pay for
my $500 dollar room and their lobster dinner, while some can't
eat or just eat bolony :?
that all that free money is going out the door with job lost. they
has reported that now days unions are not needed, we need to
concentrate on getting new jobs going w/o unions, can u imaginie
gm is losing going down needing more money and in the money
funds go to support the union to go on nice trips for meetings they
could have in their home office with just coffee and dougnuts.
but nooooooooo, lets suck more of the little guy to pay for
my $500 dollar room and their lobster dinner, while some can't
eat or just eat bolony :?
03-05-2009, 06:33 AM
#4
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,137
I do agree the UAW has went way overboard but I also know what it is to work in a hot factory 12 hours a day too. I did it for 12 years at one place and have been at my current job 5. The first place had a Union(not a big one like UAW)but it was an open shop. They did what I feel Unions should do and that was they kept things fair.....without a Union the company can just change and make up policy as they go...there is nothing to hold them to their end of the bargain,so to speak..change wages whenever they want, move you to a different shift, etc..Now with that said, I do not think that non union shops necessarily would do that...but they could if they wanted to. The place I am at now is smaller and is NON UNION and I have to say they DO treat the people better than the other,larger Union Shop did. But I am involved in management as well as floor work and I see things that are not exactly "fair" especially regarding pay scale.Some are paid more than people who actually have more knowledge than they do...some get away with things that others get written up for..it all depends on the supervisor.That type of thing doesn't happen in a Union shop. To me that is what the Union's job is...it is just a shame that some of them have gotten to the point that they think their job is to get every dime they can for the workers without considering the impact it has on the company as a whole.I think Unions are a good thing...I also think they are a huge problem at the same time,if that makes sense
03-05-2009, 07:17 AM
#5
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pelahatchie, MS
Posts: 1,005
Yes, the retreat looks bad, I agree. However, blaming the unions for the Big 3's downfall is not correct, either. IMO. I place a lot of the blame on management decisions. Insted of investing in new tooling to build fresher bodystyles or smaller, more efficient ones when the energy prices spike and people flock to the foreign automakers cars, the decision was to save the money for stock dividends. This enriched the management who was paid in stock and enriched the stockholders. This kept the stock up, which repeated the cycle every quarter.
The prevailing opinion seems to be "look at how greedy the union is", but it got benefits for the workers in place of WAGES. Remember the UAW strikes. The companies didn't want to pay for higher wages, as that would take money away for the stock dividends, so they negotiated in the very thing they now want to ditch, pensions.
As for eliminating the pensions, would YOU like to take a pay cut? Didn't think so. And if it's eliminated, they will get paid for pennies on the dollar by the gov't, which means us.
Now, the next prevailing opinion is the foreign automakers here don't do that. That is correct. When they lay off, you don't draw a pension, you draw unemployment benefits. So they don't have the big pension fund to contribute to, now do they?
Also, they locate in areas where they are the big wage payers in that area, even though they are paying less that the big 3 in terms of wages. Usually, there is nothing nearby in comparison, so once you are on the job, you are stuck. (Unless you are willing to relocate). THAT is how they keep the herd pacified. You move up in pay scale, get used to it, then can't find something comparable.
Now, the UAW contracts get a good bit of compensation to the workers if they are laid off (usually 80 per cent). SO let's compare apples to oranges here. I live in Mississippi, where the unemployment compensation rate is a max of $255.00 a week. If you work for the local foreign manufacturer or one of their suppliers, THAT is what you get if you are laid off. Would you prefer that or the 80% that was negotiated in good faith. Could you pay your bills on that? I couldn't when I was laid off...
Now the foreign manufacturer is not unionized, so here is another way they further protect their bottom line. They cut hours,and schedule weeks of unpaid time. SCHEDULED, means no unemployment can be filed. I know times are tough, but this hurts. How does this affect me since I no longer work at a foreign auto manufacturer you say? Well ,my spouse does. As they are working a 4 day week, and with the scheduled extra days off as well, in a year, she has lost the equivalent of 11 weeks salary, which is a BIG chunk out of my ability to pay the mortgage.
I'm not knocking the foreign manufactures here, nor am I being pro union. I am just expressing my views as i see them.
I am not now, nor have I EVER, been a member of a union...
The prevailing opinion seems to be "look at how greedy the union is", but it got benefits for the workers in place of WAGES. Remember the UAW strikes. The companies didn't want to pay for higher wages, as that would take money away for the stock dividends, so they negotiated in the very thing they now want to ditch, pensions.
As for eliminating the pensions, would YOU like to take a pay cut? Didn't think so. And if it's eliminated, they will get paid for pennies on the dollar by the gov't, which means us.
Now, the next prevailing opinion is the foreign automakers here don't do that. That is correct. When they lay off, you don't draw a pension, you draw unemployment benefits. So they don't have the big pension fund to contribute to, now do they?
Also, they locate in areas where they are the big wage payers in that area, even though they are paying less that the big 3 in terms of wages. Usually, there is nothing nearby in comparison, so once you are on the job, you are stuck. (Unless you are willing to relocate). THAT is how they keep the herd pacified. You move up in pay scale, get used to it, then can't find something comparable.
Now, the UAW contracts get a good bit of compensation to the workers if they are laid off (usually 80 per cent). SO let's compare apples to oranges here. I live in Mississippi, where the unemployment compensation rate is a max of $255.00 a week. If you work for the local foreign manufacturer or one of their suppliers, THAT is what you get if you are laid off. Would you prefer that or the 80% that was negotiated in good faith. Could you pay your bills on that? I couldn't when I was laid off...
Now the foreign manufacturer is not unionized, so here is another way they further protect their bottom line. They cut hours,and schedule weeks of unpaid time. SCHEDULED, means no unemployment can be filed. I know times are tough, but this hurts. How does this affect me since I no longer work at a foreign auto manufacturer you say? Well ,my spouse does. As they are working a 4 day week, and with the scheduled extra days off as well, in a year, she has lost the equivalent of 11 weeks salary, which is a BIG chunk out of my ability to pay the mortgage.
I'm not knocking the foreign manufactures here, nor am I being pro union. I am just expressing my views as i see them.
I am not now, nor have I EVER, been a member of a union...
03-05-2009, 08:51 AM
#6
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,137
See that's just the thing...companies lay people off because they don't have enough business at the moment to justify the cost of the extra/uneeded workers...why should they have to pay someone 80% of their normal pay to sit at home and do nothing that benefits the company? sure it's great for the workers but not the overall succes of the company...How will they ever get back to success if they are forking out all that money for nothing? I think the fat needs trimmed at the top more than anything,however,one could argue that those people(executives) are working under a contract negotiated in good faith as well.
Also it isn't just the fact that the big 3 aren't local to everyone...IT is almost impossible to get hired on there.I have several Uncles who work for Chevrolet and one was involved in management and he had a horrible time geting his college educated son a job on the assembly line...PLUS whenever an opening comes up, first dibs goes to people that are already employed by them ( like if someone wanted to transfer from a different plant)
I agree there is nothing wrong with recieving those benefits especially if they were negotiated into the contract ...The problem is when they renew their contracts is the time to compromise but they do not.
They don't strike while under a contract negotiated in good faith that's called a wildcard strike and it's illegal.I am not pretending to know what has or hasn't happened in the past as far as strikes go...but It is illegal for them to strike while they have a labor contract. That's a wildcat strike.
Also it isn't just the fact that the big 3 aren't local to everyone...IT is almost impossible to get hired on there.I have several Uncles who work for Chevrolet and one was involved in management and he had a horrible time geting his college educated son a job on the assembly line...PLUS whenever an opening comes up, first dibs goes to people that are already employed by them ( like if someone wanted to transfer from a different plant)
I agree there is nothing wrong with recieving those benefits especially if they were negotiated into the contract ...The problem is when they renew their contracts is the time to compromise but they do not.
They don't strike while under a contract negotiated in good faith that's called a wildcard strike and it's illegal.I am not pretending to know what has or hasn't happened in the past as far as strikes go...but It is illegal for them to strike while they have a labor contract. That's a wildcat strike.
03-05-2009, 09:37 AM
#7
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: san antonio, texas
Posts: 1,233
i commend the work you all did and the union worked great, and
it worked for that time, now it is cut back and i just think paying
for job protection right now is not going to help the bankrupt companies
go under, i do think the union can come back when the business
starts growing again, thats all, don't kill off the union, but i hope
they learn how valuable the dollar and jobs are right now and try
and cut back all around, companies are cutting medical, retierment,
bonuses, trips, the union should back off and let the litlle man survive
i think later the union will not be as big as it is now, its all good :wink:
it worked for that time, now it is cut back and i just think paying
for job protection right now is not going to help the bankrupt companies
go under, i do think the union can come back when the business
starts growing again, thats all, don't kill off the union, but i hope
they learn how valuable the dollar and jobs are right now and try
and cut back all around, companies are cutting medical, retierment,
bonuses, trips, the union should back off and let the litlle man survive
i think later the union will not be as big as it is now, its all good :wink:
03-06-2009, 05:07 PM
#8
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Emmett, Idaho
Posts: 7,334
03-16-2009, 06:57 PM
#9
Senior Member
RACING JUNKIE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Emmett, Idaho
Posts: 7,334
How Will Card Check Force YOU To Fund The Agenda Of The Far-Left?
The Heritage Foundation explains how the system presently works and how "Card Check" will tip the balance.
"For more than 60 years, American workers have decided whether to form a union with a private vote... neither management nor union organizers know how each individual worker voted. The secret ballot lets workers vote their conscience without risking job loss or physical assault for making the 'wrong' choice... . The EFCA would make it easier for union officials to pressure workers. Under the card-check process, union organizers would publicly solicit signatures on union authorization cards... Without secret ballots, union organizers know exactly who has signed union cards and who has not. In the past, union organizers have repeatedly approached and pressured-and, in some cases, threatened-reluctant workers. They have also used pro-union co-workers to solicit signatures, putting peer pressure on 'holdouts' to change their minds."
So what's the big deal?
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich explains just why such a change is a radical threat to your bottom line:
"Under Card Check, union organizers and their enforcers will be able to go into any small business, hospital or construction site and coerce workers into signing cards. If they get 50 percent plus one, the deal's done, and the workers are forced into a union. And if management and the new union fail to reach a negotiated contract, the federal government will just impose one. Coerced unionization allows for what is effectively a new, unaccountable form of forced taxation. Workers will have a portion of their paycheck going to the union to be spent as the bosses see fit, including political donations to parties and candidates that the workers may not even support." [Emphasis Mine]
Let's put that in more personal terms.
Let's say that union organizers come into YOUR workplace and through coercion or peer-pressure - or even physical intimidation - "convince" a simple majority of your co-workers to form a union.
At that point you only have two choices. You either join the union or face job termination. You can't opt-out!
And once you "join" the union, you are FORCED to pay union dues. Again, you cannot opt-out. You have no choice in the matter, and the union dues will come directly out of each and every paycheck you receive!
Not only will you have no choice but to have those union dues taken out of your paycheck every week, you will have little or no say in how those dues are spent!
How your hard-earned money gets spent will be up to the whims of union bosses. And make no mistake, your hard-earned money -- this new-found windfall that the union will ration from your paychecks -- will go, in large part, to fund advocacy for the very left-wing causes that you find repugnant.
But that's not all. When the union tells you to strike... you strike... no unemployment benefits... just a meager strike fund that does not even come close to paying the bills...
.. during such a strike, you can't go to work until a union boss tells you it is okay -- NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS!
Perhaps that's why, according to polls cited by Gingrich, "77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents" oppose doing away with the secret balloting provisions that "Card Check" would ERADICATE!
But it gets worse. If the union bosses and the company management can't reach an agreement about your job, then bureaucrats in the Obama Administration would then FORCE an agreement on both parties.
In other words, government bureaucrats would be empowered to determine all aspects of your job -- even down to the compensation you make, regardless of any agreement you and your employer come to.
Heritage again:
"Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company's operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces."
To put it another way - and let's speak plainly here - if your boss doesn't knuckle-under to union demands, then some Obama appointee will simply step in and FORCE the union demands onto your employer!
That's essentially FASCISM! [/url]
The Heritage Foundation explains how the system presently works and how "Card Check" will tip the balance.
"For more than 60 years, American workers have decided whether to form a union with a private vote... neither management nor union organizers know how each individual worker voted. The secret ballot lets workers vote their conscience without risking job loss or physical assault for making the 'wrong' choice... . The EFCA would make it easier for union officials to pressure workers. Under the card-check process, union organizers would publicly solicit signatures on union authorization cards... Without secret ballots, union organizers know exactly who has signed union cards and who has not. In the past, union organizers have repeatedly approached and pressured-and, in some cases, threatened-reluctant workers. They have also used pro-union co-workers to solicit signatures, putting peer pressure on 'holdouts' to change their minds."
So what's the big deal?
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich explains just why such a change is a radical threat to your bottom line:
"Under Card Check, union organizers and their enforcers will be able to go into any small business, hospital or construction site and coerce workers into signing cards. If they get 50 percent plus one, the deal's done, and the workers are forced into a union. And if management and the new union fail to reach a negotiated contract, the federal government will just impose one. Coerced unionization allows for what is effectively a new, unaccountable form of forced taxation. Workers will have a portion of their paycheck going to the union to be spent as the bosses see fit, including political donations to parties and candidates that the workers may not even support." [Emphasis Mine]
Let's put that in more personal terms.
Let's say that union organizers come into YOUR workplace and through coercion or peer-pressure - or even physical intimidation - "convince" a simple majority of your co-workers to form a union.
At that point you only have two choices. You either join the union or face job termination. You can't opt-out!
And once you "join" the union, you are FORCED to pay union dues. Again, you cannot opt-out. You have no choice in the matter, and the union dues will come directly out of each and every paycheck you receive!
Not only will you have no choice but to have those union dues taken out of your paycheck every week, you will have little or no say in how those dues are spent!
How your hard-earned money gets spent will be up to the whims of union bosses. And make no mistake, your hard-earned money -- this new-found windfall that the union will ration from your paychecks -- will go, in large part, to fund advocacy for the very left-wing causes that you find repugnant.
But that's not all. When the union tells you to strike... you strike... no unemployment benefits... just a meager strike fund that does not even come close to paying the bills...
.. during such a strike, you can't go to work until a union boss tells you it is okay -- NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS!
Perhaps that's why, according to polls cited by Gingrich, "77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of independents" oppose doing away with the secret balloting provisions that "Card Check" would ERADICATE!
But it gets worse. If the union bosses and the company management can't reach an agreement about your job, then bureaucrats in the Obama Administration would then FORCE an agreement on both parties.
In other words, government bureaucrats would be empowered to determine all aspects of your job -- even down to the compensation you make, regardless of any agreement you and your employer come to.
Heritage again:
"Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company's operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces."
To put it another way - and let's speak plainly here - if your boss doesn't knuckle-under to union demands, then some Obama appointee will simply step in and FORCE the union demands onto your employer!
That's essentially FASCISM! [/url]
03-16-2009, 08:12 PM
#10
Senior Member
MASTER BUILDER
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: out of my mind in Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 179
DRIVEMISSDD.....Wow have you drank from the punch bowl too many times..... it seems it was the reign of the last 8 years that got us here....unions back in the day came about to improve working and safety concerns, as well as the standards that are in place today...now granted there were times that they were in bed with the mob and things went down hill....but for the most part the improved the working conditions in this country and even help create the middle class that has been steadily erroded during the last 8 to 12 years under Rebumblican Rule...it does no good to place blame on any political party it is time for you and me to see that it is possible to "WORK TOGEHTER" to help fix this mess we are in...cause you know the Corporate Pigs who are stealing our hard earned money don't give a rat hind end about us.....750 Billion for Wall Street....yeah like they need it
