Union Yes/No

[INeedAVacation]

If you had the opportunity to form a Union with the people in your place of work and gaining all the benefits that come with collective bargaining, how would you vote?

Feel free to explain or comment (or not to explain or comment) on why you'd vote the way you would.

[ShawnLee]

I'd vote no, for the following reasons...

A) I work at a church. Though I'd like the idea of more standardized wages for youth pastors, I hardly think a union is the way to go about it.
B) I'm a free-market kinda guy.
C) Unions generally suck now and cause all sorts of problems.
D) I say no to Unions everytime I think of the whiny pro-Union guys who were in half of my classes as an undergrad. id est...
~"That's because there weren't unions back then..."
~"If they were unionized, that wouldn't be a problem."
~"I don't care if they voted against the union, they don't know what's good for them."
~"Workers grouping together is good. Employers grouping together is bad."
E) Unions don't protect workers. Unions protect the people who are in them at the expense of anyone else, even other (gasp!) workers.

I should note. I'm not hating on you, these are just my opinions and won't change to seem nicer to you.
I really do have nothing but respect for you and your beliefs, even though I think they're generally wrong.

Also, I really think this should be in the Political Forum.

[whitak24]

isn't this a complete repeat of a thread from a few months back?

[bachviet]

Most of the time I'm against Unions.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nope. I like the freedom to negotiate my own deal with my boss. There is no way a union could do a better job of that for me.

[faither]

My company has one for clerical positions. It has been my impression that they negotiate for and "protect" the lowest common denominator at the expense of the brightest and hardest working.

[LegendKiller]

My company has one for clerical positions. It has been my impression that they negotiate for and "protect" the lowest common denominator at the expense of the brightest and hardest working.


Agreed

[WhiskeyPapa]

Yeah, kind of like if students were unionized, everyone would get a C, no matter how hard they worked (or how lazy they were.) Kind of removes the incentive to achieve.

[molecularfire]

Yes because if I was the one forming the union I have a good chance of being the leader. Then I can become corrupt and embezzel union dues and work out side deals with management.

[welfareloser]

graduate students take it up the butt and really need a union.

[Merlin]

If you believe in free markets and that the market for labor is efficient, which I do, then there really is no need for unions. Back in the day, sure. But now labor law is pretty clear and people have many more options. If they don't like their job or feel that they are underpaid they can go somewhere else.

[Nija]

I take it up the butt and really need a union.
:duh:

[welfareloser]

If you believe in free markets and that the market for labor is efficient, which I do, then there really is no need for unions. Back in the day, sure. But now labor law is pretty clear and people have many more options. If they don't like their job or feel that they are underpaid they can go somewhere else.

so the jobs where the people are mistreated still exist and still get filled. somebody works them. the worst jobs get worked by the dumbest, slowest, least educated among us. the lowest echelon of society. our most vulnerable.

you know, the people who really need labor unions.

[Merlin]

so the jobs where the people are mistreated still exist and still get filled. somebody works them. the worst jobs get worked by the dumbest, slowest, least educated among us. the lowest echelon of society. our most vulnerable.

you know, the people who really need labor unions.
Oh, you mean teachers and ballplayers. :hehehmm:

But seriously, you are right - ugly jobs still get filled. I believe that the labor market is efficient in aggregate but there are still pockets of the economy that are not.

[TofuNinja]

depends on my job. if it was in Education, I'd join, if it was something else I might....

[Airencracken]

I'm already a teamster, so guess what I voted? :wavey2:

[eSDee]

I'm too awesome to be held back by a union ;)

[sizemic1]

I was a UFCW union member for 13 years.
Have since gotten out of the business.

Based upon the overwhelming amount of idiots that were in my Local, I would vote NO for my current occupation. Most people have no real concept of what it takes to run a business and have unreasonable expectations of what an employer and the union can actually do for you.

[doolittle]

ive never been in one, but my grandfather swore by his electrical union. he said they really took care of him,even to the end.

[cheapie]

based on experience in a company facility that employed union...um...employees i would say absolutely not. it's extremely likely that this union will be the cause of the entire facility will be closed down shortly and the production moved to some of our other facilities because the union won't bend on safety, pay, shift flexibility, and other items. i could cite examples but i could get fired so...believe me. the union mgmt. has no ****ing clue what the true market value of their skillsets.

[psycho-]

Unions are inherently communist because it foregos free-market activity.

[Airencracken]

Unions are inherently communist because it foregos free-market activity.

But is that bad? Without a dash of socialism, capitalism turns into an aristocracy pretty quick. *cough*corperate america*cough* *cough*campaign contributions*cough*

[Hypnotist]

Look fooooooor the union laaabeeeeeeeel. How does the rest of the jingle go?
I'd rather see and pay more for American Union-made goods than "Made in China" and Proudly Marketed by your local insidious Wally-World not so goods.

[gear02]

I think Unions are needed only for when a situation becomes exploitive, but it doesn't need to go further than that. Take the situation of grad students. I would have them unionize just to bring attention and maybe have some sort of arbitration process, but they shouldn't get into dictating salaries or hirings/firings. Otherwise they'd spiral down to a GM level :)

Unions should just be a gathering of employees working for a common good, not a junta or mafia like they are in many of our industries.


My company has one for clerical positions. It has been my impression that they negotiate for and "protect" the lowest common denominator at the expense of the brightest and hardest working.

TOTALLY AGREED!

[BrewMaster]

isn't this a complete repeat of a thread from a few months back?
yep. but with less propaganda (so far). (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83397)

as for me, it's union HELL NO! I agree with wwp. I can make a better deal for myself than anyone else will. There's no need for me to be tied to the middle of the pack when I can do better than that.

[gear02]

yep. but with less propaganda (so far). (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83397)

as for me, it's union HELL NO! I agree with wwp. I can make a better deal for myself than anyone else will. There's no need for me to be tied to the middle of the pack when I can do better than that.

What if you worked at a place where management has no interest in giving you a better deal? Sure I guess you can go find another job, but what if you really couldn't do that either? Then what?

I still believe unions are evil, but in these situation the only thing I can think of is to form a union just to show that it's not one person management's screwing with, but with many/everyone.

[BrewMaster]

What if you worked at a place where management has no interest in giving you a better deal? Sure I guess you can go find another job, but what if you really couldn't do that either? Then what?

i am a chemist/materials engineer in a moderately specialized field. i absolutely would go somewhere else and I did. i started my new job in September. my boss was such an ass and was rather stingy given all of the profitable work that I did for the company. so as soon as i got an offer from my new place i left and didn't look back. i am very happy in my new position and i didn't need a union to help me get a lot more money with a better company that gives better benefits.

as for the hypothetical part, if i can't go somewhere else then that means i am in a dead end job and hanging on to a union is even worse than finding a new job in a new field.

go to college, learn something, get a useful degree and you don't need no stinkin' union.

[Merlin]

...Sure I guess you can go find another job, but what if you really couldn't do that either?
Why couldn't he? He is not a slave and as such is free to leave. If he can't find a better position then maybe it is a case of him needing to readjust/re-evaluate exactly what he has to offer. :shrug:


There is a building just down the street that has had people picketing in front of it for what seems like forever. When asked what was going on the picketers responded that they were picketing because the building, which is being renovated, hired non-union carpenters for "below the prevailing wage." Now call me carzy buy if someone is willing to do the work for the wage paid then does that not become the new prevailing wage? Just seems to me like these folks need to realize that their skills might not be as valuable/scarce as they would have you believe.

[gear02]

Why couldn't he? He is not a slave and as such is free to leave. If he can't find a better position then maybe it is a case of him needing to readjust/re-evaluate exactly what he has to offer. :shrug:


No...I was refering to a hypothical situation where someone was stuck in a position where they couldn't change jobs. It's not necessarily a dead end job, but it's a valid example. Another example are grad students. They really can't pick up since many they're 3 years into a 5 year program and would have to start over if they changed schools. Maybe their visa binds them to that school, etc.

I'm only for unions in exploitive situations where the employer knows they're stuck so they drag them through the dirt. Walmart employees remind me of this situation also.



There is a building just down the street that has had people picketing in front of it for what seems like forever. When asked what was going on the picketers responded that they were picketing because the building, which is being renovated, hired non-union carpenters for "below the prevailing wage." Now call me carzy buy if someone is willing to do the work for the wage paid then does that not become the new prevailing wage? Just seems to me like these folks need to realize that their skills might not be as valuable/scarce as they would have you believe.

Yeah that's pretty stupid. You know what it's called when you demand everyone to pay a certain amount? It's called a CARTEL.

What unions do is try to get the upper hand with members, then start forcing higher and higher wages and benefits to the point where it isn't realistic. That's not fair bargaining, that's extortion.

[Merlin]

No...I was refering to a hypothical situation where someone was stuck in a position where they couldn't change jobs. It's not necessarily a dead end job, but it's a valid example.

Sorry, that is where my unimaginative brain is having some difficulty. I can't really think of a job that can't be left.

[Cantacuzene]

I am a pro-union guy in theory. In practice they often have their flaws. That said, I am 100% sure Walmart, to name only one place, would be a much better place to work if the employees were unionized.

Labor laws? Hahah. You capitalists are funny. You mean the congress and presidency who are bought and paid for by big business are ever going to do anything absolutely contrary to big business? Please. Those laws are only as strong as the public reaction to their abuse is violent.

Bottom line is this: people shouldnt be ever forced to unionize, but they should always have the option. Preventing your employees from unionizing against their will is nearly as anti-competitive as a monopoly. People should have the freedom to organize how they see fit as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

[BrewMaster]

Another example are grad students. They really can't pick up since many they're 3 years into a 5 year program and would have to start over if they changed schools. Maybe their visa binds them to that school, etc.
i think it is hilarious that grad students think they deserve anything more. they are paying to get an education and using them as TAs is the way a school employs them while they get their graduate degree. to think they deserve medical coverage or higher wages is absurd. it is not a lifetime job, it is a temporary thing while they get a degree to get a better job. that's my perspective having seen the UCLA grad student union fight for the above mentioned benefits. other schools may vary.

[INeedAVacation]

so the jobs where the people are mistreated still exist and still get filled. somebody works them. the worst jobs get worked by the dumbest, slowest, least educated among us. the lowest echelon of society. our most vulnerable.

you know, the people who really need labor unions.

Like the Fire Department employees, Police Officers, Hospital Staff, Airline employees (including Pilots), Teachers, etc.? Are they the "dumbess, slowest, least educated among us. the lowest echelon of society. our most vulnerable."? Also, you may want to use the "Caps Lock" key every now and then. :kiss:

[INeedAVacation]

I am a pro-union guy in theory. In practice they often have their flaws. That said, I am 100% sure Walmart, to name only one place, would be a much better place to work if the employees were unionized.

Labor laws? Hahah. You capitalists are funny. You mean the congress and presidency who are bought and paid for by big business are ever going to do anything absolutely contrary to big business? Please. Those laws are only as strong as the public reaction to their abuse is violent.

Bottom line is this: people shouldnt be ever forced to unionize, but they should always have the option. Preventing your employees from unionizing against their will is nearly as anti-competitive as a monopoly. People should have the freedom to organize how they see fit as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

I especially like one of your points; re: labor laws. I often hear a lot of resentment towards Labor Unions and some people often make the remark that our current labor laws are, "good enough". Those people seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that the labor laws are not 'finished'. They can always be added, changed, or removed. It envolves a constant and never-ending battle between big business versus regular joe. Regular Joe doesn't have much of a voice all by himself which is why regular Joe forms Unions to help counter the huge, collective voice of big business. In the absence of Joe and the Union he formed which protects Joe and all the Joes (even the Joes not members of a Union) big business basically dictates the laws with no real opposing force. We really are our own worst enemy.

[INeedAVacation]

i think it is hilarious that grad students think they deserve anything more. they are paying to get an education and using them as TAs is the way a school employs them while they get their graduate degree. to think they deserve medical coverage or higher wages is absurd. it is not a lifetime job, it is a temporary thing while they get a degree to get a better job. that's my perspective having seen the UCLA grad student union fight for the above mentioned benefits. other schools may vary.


Yeah, what are they thinking by trying to negotiate a decent wage to meet their expenses like FOOD and SHELTER and secure medical coverage if they get sick or hurt in exchange for the services they are providing? Sheesh, the nerve of some people!! :rolleyes:

[LegendKiller]

Yeah, what are they thinking by trying to negotiate a decent wage to meet their expenses like FOOD and SHELTER and secure medical coverage if they get sick or hurt in exchange for the services they are providing? Sheesh, the nerve of some people!! :rolleyes:


I like how you are pumping your own thread that was buried.

Yeah, like the dock workers on the west coast that cost the economy 2-3 billion while trying to prop up their 80k+, 40 hour straight, all-medical paid, non-modernized, and extremely inefficient jobs. I would compare those prima donna and lazy selves to somebody like Latrell Sprewell. "I just gotta feed my family".

Thats funny considering there are people who make 1/4 - 1/2 as much, feed a family of 5, and are still union protected but *don't* cost the economy 2-3 billion.

The west coast dock workers are a perfect example of a good idea gone bad. Workers in Canada or Mexico were 2-3x efficient due to modernization. Their ports were busier as a result. The west coast workers didn't want to modernize to improve their unload times, so they put up a fight costing the economy a lot of money.

Unskilled labor making 80k while being babies is stupid, I went to 7 years of post-HS school and don't make near that and I am damn good at what I do.

[ShawnLee]

rant:stupid:

Exactly. It reminds me of F.A Hayek. The problem with both Keynesian economy and Unions is that they both feed off of each other. Keynes defines the monetary policy and financial needs of a nation based on wage levels, which proved to nearly cripple countries once stagflation hit. Unions, knowing that monetary policy will adjust to their wage "needs," will raise wages again because once everyone else is making as much as they are, they need to make more too. Thus, you get union reinforced trade policies that cause inflation but either do nothing to promote, or possibly even limit, productivity. Bad...

Unions and stagflation bad.
Reaganomics and free-markets good.

[cheapie]

I like how you are pumping your own thread that was buried.

Yeah, like the dock workers on the west coast that cost the economy 2-3 billion while trying to prop up their 80k+, 40 hour straight, all-medical paid, non-modernized, and extremely inefficient jobs. I would compare those prima donna and lazy selves to somebody like Latrell Sprewell. "I just gotta feed my family".

Thats funny considering there are people who make 1/4 - 1/2 as much, feed a family of 5, and are still union protected but *don't* cost the economy 2-3 billion.

The west coast dock workers are a perfect example of a good idea gone bad. Workers in Canada or Mexico were 2-3x efficient due to modernization. Their ports were busier as a result. The west coast workers didn't want to modernize to improve their unload times, so they put up a fight costing the economy a lot of money.

Unskilled labor making 80k while being babies is stupid, I went to 7 years of post-HS school and don't make near that and I am damn good at what I do.



dude...you GOTTA come work at eaton!!! www.eatonjobs.com you'll be making that in no time with your education.

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills. and my company will pay for them. :heh:

[Cantacuzene]

Reaganomics and free-markets good.

:heh: If you think Reaganomics and free markets are teh same thing you need to think again. Isn't it funny that the type of businesses that did the best under Reagan were ones with government contracts in heavily regulated near monopolistic areas?

Reagan and his policies were no more free market than Carter's or Clinton's or either Bushs'. They just gave different people/areas different priorities. Obviously you like his priorities. That's fine. Don't let your like of those priorities alter history.

[INeedAVacation]

I like how you are pumping your own thread that was buried.

Yeah, like the dock workers on the west coast that cost the economy 2-3 billion while trying to prop up their 80k+, 40 hour straight, all-medical paid, non-modernized, and extremely inefficient jobs. I would compare those prima donna and lazy selves to somebody like Latrell Sprewell. "I just gotta feed my family".

Thats funny considering there are people who make 1/4 - 1/2 as much, feed a family of 5, and are still union protected but *don't* cost the economy 2-3 billion.

The west coast dock workers are a perfect example of a good idea gone bad. Workers in Canada or Mexico were 2-3x efficient due to modernization. Their ports were busier as a result. The west coast workers didn't want to modernize to improve their unload times, so they put up a fight costing the economy a lot of money.

Unskilled labor making 80k while being babies is stupid, I went to 7 years of post-HS school and don't make near that and I am damn good at what I do.


Is there something wrong with my responding to a post when I have the opportunity to respond? Also, it's obvious I have an interest in this topic as I did initiate the thread and yes, I would like to hear other's opinions, and yes, I may choose to respond to some of them.

To your post, I would appreciate your source of information regarding the average wages of the west coast dock workers because I d not believe the average worker there earns 80k. Also, you do seem to be eluding to the dock strike but do not understand what the points of contention were; it was not that the workers were completely against any new technology, it's that they wanted to ensure the employees running that new technology were Union (I think you can get why that makes complete sense). Next, it sounds to me as though you have the petty attitude towards the dock workers because of simple jealousy-you state you don't have it so why should they? How unproductful is that?-Rather than building yourself up, you tear others down. It's too bad that, "[you] don't make anywhere near that much and are damn good at what [you] do." It sounds like you're one of the people on here who guarantee that you sure don't want anyone like a Union helping you negotiate your salary because they could never help you negotiate a better wage than you can get yourself. It doesn't sound like that's working so well for you...

[INeedAVacation]

Thanks for your opinions.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Dude, you need to pick a better life crusade. You're going to bang your head against a brick wall for the rest of your life on this one.

[INeedAVacation]

Dude, you need to pick a better life crusade. You're going to bang your head against a brick wall for the rest of your life on this one.

Tell me about it. Unfortunately there were, and possibly still are, some Unions which were/are not doing everything as they should have been doing them and hurt some of their members. -With great power comes great responsibility. This, along with a lot of misconceptions, has hurt the credibility of organizing Unions with a lot of people but the more knowlegeable people become of what Unions stand for and how they are needed, the more open they will be to forming one in their workplace. I can compare it to the WalMonster, initially most people loved Walmart and it could do no wrong. Now, there is much more resentment towards Walmart because people are seeing it's effect on communities as a whole-tides turn, some just take longer than others.

[LegendKiller]

Is there something wrong with my responding to a post when I have the opportunity to respond? Also, it's obvious I have an interest in this topic as I did initiate the thread and yes, I would like to hear other's opinions, and yes, I may choose to respond to some of them.

To your post, I would appreciate your source of information regarding the average wages of the west coast dock workers because I d not believe the average worker there earns 80k. Also, you do seem to be eluding to the dock strike but do not understand what the points of contention were; it was not that the workers were completely against any new technology, it's that they wanted to ensure the employees running that new technology were Union (I think you can get why that makes complete sense). Next, it sounds to me as though you have the petty attitude towards the dock workers because of simple jealousy-you state you don't have it so why should they? How unproductful is that?-Rather than building yourself up, you tear others down. It's too bad that, "[you] don't make anywhere near that much and are damn good at what [you] do." It sounds like you're one of the people on here who guarantee that you sure don't want anyone like a Union helping you negotiate your salary because they could never help you negotiate a better wage than you can get yourself. It doesn't sound like that's working so well for you...



I love this tact, psychoanalyzing somebody saying they are tearing an issue down to raise themselves up, yet doing the same exact thing! It's a brilliant strategy that must work wonders at getting your point accross.


http://dbacon.igc.org/Unions/21Lockout.htm

Sorry, 62k per year average (using their high and low).


http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20021008/FP_004.htm


"Full-time dock workers in the union make an average of $80,000 a year. Experienced foremen make $167,000."


Regardless of whether it was over a fight to keep jobs after technological improvement or not, it is a fight to keep inefficiency, over use of labor, apathy, and pathetic non-free-market foolishness.

This typical short sightedness is seen in unions everywhere, from air to car to beverage to postal. The "Lets get all that we can out of them now so that we can prop up our lazy jobs and create as much inefficiency as possible" comes back to bite them in the arse as they demand more and more while their jobs are erroded by competition from external forces.

They will claim that we should stop external forces from influencing our labor pools. However, they drive their toyota's or use their Sony TV's, which are a product of free markets but they don't want to give up their big fat union paychecks.

The Longshoreman short sightedness is that due to their inefficiencies they will eventually force companies to go to other, cheaper, faster, more efficient docks to compete in their own industry. Their jobs will decline because they can't reduce their contracts (unions never want to back down), the remaindermen will bitch to high heaven that they are getting the big shaft, and nobody will be happy but the fatcat union bosses.

I was fed on unions, I was raised unions. Both my mother and father are union, as is my brother. When Coke tried to pull some crap with my dad after his 2nd heart attack (they tried to list his time off as not FMLA) the union attacked coke and kept him from being fired. When the Post Office tried to can my mom because she pissed off *one* supervisor and the supervisor tried to undertake a vendetta the union got the supervisor fired for unprofessional conduct. When the PO took away my brothers forklift liscense because they had unsafe work areas, he ran over something and the PO tried to blame him, the union got his license back ASAP.

Now, you can try to attack me saying I am some kind of free market righty nutjob, or insinuate I have a personal vendetta, thats all fine and dandy because you are quite wrong. I have seen the benefits of unions, it kept food on my plate for 22 years (and still does when I visit).

However, I have seen the negatives. I worked at the PO for 3 years during undergraduate during breaks. I saw the drunk forklift drivers. I saw the apathetic "I get paid for 1 piece of mail or 100 pieces of mail" attitude. I saw the "This new machine will eliminate my job, lets get slower" attitude. I saw the drugs, the poor education, the low skill, unsafe practices. The bitching about unfair practices, the contentiousness between labor and management that was propegated by the "them or us" mentality of the union.

I saw union bosses walking around in their nice suits, shoes, all the while claiming to be "men of the workers". I saw workers get promoted to union clerks and create nepotism and cronism work environments, taking out their angers because of their uneducated and poor management styles propegated by the union.

I saw the good, the bad, and the extremely ugly of unions. However, you refuse to acknowledge anything but the good, blithely dismissing any other viewpoint as vitirolic attacks, or half-baked economic theories. Yet you refuse to see any side.

As for the attack on me re: my salary, thats fine. I negotiated a decent salary for somebody with high education but little experience. My further education and achievements have given me a more than 20% increase in 1.5 years. It is still below that 80k mark but it is increasing. I don't need some poorly educated FUD spreading fear-mongering idiot to run my salary negotiations. I prefer to let my skills, achievements, education, and personal connection to my boss, his boss, and the head of my division do the talking.


That is, after all, the American way. Meritocracy, not mediocrity like the union encourages.

[Merlin]

To your post, I would appreciate your source of information regarding the average wages of the west coast dock workers because I d not believe the average worker there earns 80k.

He is right, those guys make a crazy amount of money. Especially for unskilled labor. But that is what happens when you get a strangle hold on an important asset.



Also, you do seem to be eluding to the dock strike but do not understand what the points of contention were; it was not that the workers were completely against any new technology, it's that they wanted to ensure the employees running that new technology were Union (I think you can get why that makes complete sense).
Nice thought but the real reason has to do with organized crime - always big in the unions. As long as the dock workers used nothing more than a clipboard and pencil the Tony Sopranos of the world could always make sure enough stuff vanished to live comfortably. Once you increase the technology theft will become that much more difficult to cover up.

[Airencracken]

I don't really believe America is still a meritocratic society. Though unions aren't the solution to the problem nessecarly.

[INeedAVacation]

I love this tact, psychoanalyzing somebody saying they are tearing an issue down to raise themselves up, yet doing the same exact thing! It's a brilliant strategy that must work wonders at getting your point accross.


http://dbacon.igc.org/Unions/21Lockout.htm

Sorry, 62k per year average (using their high and low).


http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20021008/FP_004.htm


"Full-time dock workers in the union make an average of $80,000 a year. Experienced foremen make $167,000."


Regardless of whether it was over a fight to keep jobs after technological improvement or not, it is a fight to keep inefficiency, over use of labor, apathy, and pathetic non-free-market foolishness.

This typical short sightedness is seen in unions everywhere, from air to car to beverage to postal. The "Lets get all that we can out of them now so that we can prop up our lazy jobs and create as much inefficiency as possible" comes back to bite them in the arse as they demand more and more while their jobs are erroded by competition from external forces.

They will claim that we should stop external forces from influencing our labor pools. However, they drive their toyota's or use their Sony TV's, which are a product of free markets but they don't want to give up their big fat union paychecks.

The Longshoreman short sightedness is that due to their inefficiencies they will eventually force companies to go to other, cheaper, faster, more efficient docks to compete in their own industry. Their jobs will decline because they can't reduce their contracts (unions never want to back down), the remaindermen will bitch to high heaven that they are getting the big shaft, and nobody will be happy but the fatcat union bosses.

I was fed on unions, I was raised unions. Both my mother and father are union, as is my brother. When Coke tried to pull some crap with my dad after his 2nd heart attack (they tried to list his time off as not FMLA) the union attacked coke and kept him from being fired. When the Post Office tried to can my mom because she pissed off *one* supervisor and the supervisor tried to undertake a vendetta the union got the supervisor fired for unprofessional conduct. When the PO took away my brothers forklift liscense because they had unsafe work areas, he ran over something and the PO tried to blame him, the union got his license back ASAP.

Now, you can try to attack me saying I am some kind of free market righty nutjob, or insinuate I have a personal vendetta, thats all fine and dandy because you are quite wrong. I have seen the benefits of unions, it kept food on my plate for 22 years (and still does when I visit).

However, I have seen the negatives. I worked at the PO for 3 years during undergraduate during breaks. I saw the drunk forklift drivers. I saw the apathetic "I get paid for 1 piece of mail or 100 pieces of mail" attitude. I saw the "This new machine will eliminate my job, lets get slower" attitude. I saw the drugs, the poor education, the low skill, unsafe practices. The bitching about unfair practices, the contentiousness between labor and management that was propegated by the "them or us" mentality of the union.

I saw union bosses walking around in their nice suits, shoes, all the while claiming to be "men of the workers". I saw workers get promoted to union clerks and create nepotism and cronism work environments, taking out their angers because of their uneducated and poor management styles propegated by the union.

I saw the good, the bad, and the extremely ugly of unions. However, you refuse to acknowledge anything but the good, blithely dismissing any other viewpoint as vitirolic attacks, or half-baked economic theories. Yet you refuse to see any side.

As for the attack on me re: my salary, thats fine. I negotiated a decent salary for somebody with high education but little experience. My further education and achievements have given me a more than 20% increase in 1.5 years. It is still below that 80k mark but it is increasing. I don't need some poorly educated FUD spreading fear-mongering idiot to run my salary negotiations. I prefer to let my skills, achievements, education, and personal connection to my boss, his boss, and the head of my division do the talking.


That is, after all, the American way. Meritocracy, not mediocrity like the union encourages.

Interesting that you accuse me of the very attack you made at tearing others (the dock workers in this example) down rather than building yourself up. Then you provide no facts or quotes to back it up. I'm not about tearing other people's wages or benefits down (not even yours) to make my own seem higher. I'm about building my own up. You're the one who made the statement that not even you made the 80k that you claimed dock workers received and asserted that they were overpaid and should make less rather than syaing you are underpaid and are trying to make more.

I do appreciate your sources for the salary you claimed (80k) the dock workers earn. However, as you claim your first source states, it's actually about 62k.


It's funny you think, "regardless of whether it was a fight to keep jobs after technological improvements..." because that is not an issue which is besides the point, that is one of the key points.-I would think you could understand the logic for ensuring union jobs which are eliminated due to technological advances being replaced by other union members to run the technology. Whether you like Unions or not, is irrelevant to the fact that makes complete sense.

Next, so you have first hand knowlege of how Unions have been the only thing which corrected workplace issues for several people you know; both your parents working at two different companies would have been wrongfully terminated if not for the Union. Your brother obviously also benefited from his membership by receiving his license back which he initially lost on the demand of the company and because of a company safety problem. Wow, and the way you rail against Unions, talk about biting the hand that feeds you! I'm sure your family doesn't share your view.

About my only seeing the 'good' of Unions and none of the 'bad'.-Perhaps you completely missed the paragraph I wrote in the thread directly above your latest response. I suggest you read it; in it I freely admit Unions are not perfect-just because something may not be perfect doesn't mean it is not the best option.-Quick, nobody marry anybody who is not perfect! (Also, a perhaps more on point, being an "at will employee" also has it's own drawbacks and limitations [obviously]). So, maybe you shouldn't be an at will employee either which leaves you unemployed which also has some drawbacks I'm sure....

Ok, regarding my, "attack on [you] re: [your] salary", I only responded to the comparison you brought up, the dock workers salaries vs. your salary." Ironic how you feel I'm attacking you when I am responding to a specific issue which you initiated.

:boxing:


Nice thought but the real reason has to do with organized crime - always big in the unions. As long as the dock workers used nothing more than a clipboard and pencil the Tony Sopranos of the world could always make sure enough stuff vanished to live comfortably. Once you increase the technology theft will become that much more difficult to cover up.

What makes you think this and what facts do you have which will support this accusation? (By the way, you're not allowed to say, "I saw it on a tv show")haha

[Merlin]

What makes you think this and what facts do you have which will support this accusation?
Sorry, it may take me a while to produce concrete evidence of mob activity. They tend to keep most of that stuff off line. :bandit:

[guiseppewv]

Yeah, kind of like if students were unionized, everyone would get a C, no matter how hard they worked (or how lazy they were.) Kind of removes the incentive to achieve.



It has been my impression that they negotiate for and "protect" the lowest common denominator at the expense of the brightest and hardest working.

:stupid: X 100

You two took the words right out of my mouth!!!

From my experience, when I worked with or for 3 different unions that this is always the case. You have a few good union workers who get the shaft from the union people who are complete idiots and slackers. The slackers and idiots get promoted b/c of "seniority" not because of merit.

[INeedAVacation]

Sorry, it may take me a while to produce concrete evidence of mob activity. They tend to keep most of that stuff off line. :bandit:

So employees who form Unions in their place of work are sononomous with the mob?
Also, you admit you have no evidence of your accusation that the 'real' reason the dock workers were opposed to the contract management tried to get them to agree to was because the Union members wanted to produce a lax security enviornment so they could steal stuff. It's not very responsible to state something for which you have no basis or foundation indicating it to be true. :nono:


:stupid: X 100

You two took the words right out of my mouth!!!

From my experience, when I worked with or for 3 different unions that this is always the case. You have a few good union workers who get the shaft from the union people who are complete idiots and slackers. The slackers and idiots get promoted b/c of "seniority" not because of merit.

When there are underperforming staff whom do not meet or exceed the requirements which the Union and Management agreed to in the contract there are appropriate actions to be taken by Management.-If Management doesn't do their job well, don't blame me.

Incidentally, regarding the "good Union workers" you referenced, Union members, in general earn about 25% higher wages/benefits than their non-union counterparts. How exactly are they, "getting the shaft"? For sake of conversation, assuming the Union was eliminated by the employees and thus the, "idiots and slackers" disappeared from the workplace so would the 25% higher wages the "good employees" would have been receiving. The stats are at the website of the Department of Labor, look them up. Which is a better deal for the "good employees", supposedly no "idiots or slackers" when the Union leaves and a reduction in their pay/benefits by about 25% or earn 25% more and supposedly have "idiots and slackers" in the workplace. Besides, most workplaces do not have Unions and I'm sure there are still plenty of "idiots and slackers". I'm sure you all may have stories of come of your coworkers....

[Merlin]

So employees who form Unions in their place of work are sononomous with the mob?
Synomonous? No. But truth is that the mob and organized labor have a long history of doing business together. Especially down at the docks. Of course not all unions are mob affiliated but....

[ialsohaveadream]

Synomonous? No. But truth is that the mob and organized labor have a long history of doing business together. Especially down at the docks. Of course not all unions are mob affiliated but....
This is true. You can't pretend that there hasn't (and isn't) mob connections with organized labor. I didn't get the impression that Merlin meant that all unions were affiliated with organized crime.

[LegendKiller]

Interesting that you accuse me of the very attack you made at tearing others (the dock workers in this example) down rather than building yourself up. Then you provide no facts or quotes to back it up. I'm not about tearing other people's wages or benefits down (not even yours) to make my own seem higher. I'm about building my own up. You're the one who made the statement that not even you made the 80k that you claimed dock workers received and asserted that they were overpaid and should make less rather than syaing you are underpaid and are trying to make more.

I do appreciate your sources for the salary you claimed (80k) the dock workers earn. However, as you claim your first source states, it's actually about 62k.


It's funny you think, "regardless of whether it was a fight to keep jobs after technological improvements..." because that is not an issue which is besides the point, that is one of the key points.-I would think you could understand the logic for ensuring union jobs which are eliminated due to technological advances being replaced by other union members to run the technology. Whether you like Unions or not, is irrelevant to the fact that makes complete sense.

Next, so you have first hand knowlege of how Unions have been the only thing which corrected workplace issues for several people you know; both your parents working at two different companies would have been wrongfully terminated if not for the Union. Your brother obviously also benefited from his membership by receiving his license back which he initially lost on the demand of the company and because of a company safety problem. Wow, and the way you rail against Unions, talk about biting the hand that feeds you! I'm sure your family doesn't share your view.

About my only seeing the 'good' of Unions and none of the 'bad'.-Perhaps you completely missed the paragraph I wrote in the thread directly above your latest response. I suggest you read it; in it I freely admit Unions are not perfect-just because something may not be perfect doesn't mean it is not the best option.-Quick, nobody marry anybody who is not perfect! (Also, a perhaps more on point, being an "at will employee" also has it's own drawbacks and limitations [obviously]). So, maybe you shouldn't be an at will employee either which leaves you unemployed which also has some drawbacks I'm sure....

Ok, regarding my, "attack on [you] re: [your] salary", I only responded to the comparison you brought up, the dock workers salaries vs. your salary." Ironic how you feel I'm attacking you when I am responding to a specific issue which you initiated.

:boxing:



What makes you think this and what facts do you have which will support this accusation? (By the way, you're not allowed to say, "I saw it on a tv show")haha

Personally I'd be more inclined to believe a non biased site since the first one is more of a uber-pro union site, they'd be more inclined to lowball the number.

I am not biting the hand that feeds me. I am pointing out that your rosey colored glasses, rah rah union schtick is deceptive. Not only are they anti-efficiency, they encourage apathy, but they also mask the poor performance (LCD) of the workers. In effect they are bullied into keeping crap workers *AND* paying them a lot of money.

Instead of being pro-active to improve the image and performance of the union, the union bands together and lets their workers get away with this crap. Any sign of bowing to management's whims is taken as a sign of weakness. In effect the union is no worse than a bully, they can't back down, they can't sidestep, they can only fight and fight hard. Their method is fighting is "our way or the highway". Which is a great strategy to solve issues. :disa:

I compared my wages to those of a union worker as a simple juxtaposition. I work damn hard, I am educated, and I am very good at what I do. My labor is very skilled and it takes a lot of thought to do it, yet I don't get paid as much. Why? Because my experience *AND* education *AND* skills aren't in line yet. Once those three are, then the bux come.

However, you take an unskilled job, no education, no thought, no drive, and you STILL pay them more than 70% of the workers in the workforce. WHY!?! Not because they deserve it but because they bully themselves to getting paid MORE than they should. Then they sit on their asses and STILL produce crap work!

Not saying that this is everywhere or every union worker, but the union *encourages* this behavior, further reinforcing it. Then they turn around and fight modernization and efficiency by saying it will reduce their overpaid and underskilled and underworked jobs.

It is a distortion in the economy that needs to be fixed.

[BrewMaster]

Yeah, what are they thinking by trying to negotiate a decent wage to meet their expenses like FOOD and SHELTER and secure medical coverage if they get sick or hurt in exchange for the services they are providing? Sheesh, the nerve of some people!! :rolleyes:
they are students. it's not a career. they are there to learn, not make money. the school pays a very decent wage that met all expenses (tuition, books, living expenses) which made the unions look even more foolish. about half of the TAs did not walk out because they recognized how stupid it was to demand more. the school offered cheap health insurance but grad student TAs wanted it for free. and all of this is why the grad students got nothing more than they already had.

[INeedAVacation]

they are students. it's not a career. they are there to learn, not make money. the school pays a very decent wage that met all expenses (tuition, books, living expenses) which made the unions look even more foolish. about half of the TAs did not walk out because they recognized how stupid it was to demand more. the school offered cheap health insurance but grad student TAs wanted it for free. and all of this is why the grad students got nothing more than they already had.

"They are there to learn, not make money".-Are you serious? As if the two must be mutually exclusive! They may be there to learn but they also have financial obligations, just like everyone else. What they are seeking is not outrageous and althought they may not have been successful with their attempt yet, doesn't mean they will never be.

It's interesting how you state as a fact that "about half of the TAs did not walk out because they recognized how stupid it was to demand more." What information do you have which supports your assumption? For those who choose not to demonstrate I'm sure they may have various reasons. Some of them may agree with you that they are worth less than what their fellow coworkers are trying to gain for them, others may have not had the strength to stand up for themselves, perhaps some are stretched too thin financially to work towards gaining themselves decent wages/benefits.

[INeedAVacation]

Personally I'd be more inclined to believe a non biased site since the first one is more of a uber-pro union site, they'd be more inclined to lowball the number.

I am not biting the hand that feeds me. I am pointing out that your rosey colored glasses, rah rah union schtick is deceptive. Not only are they anti-efficiency, they encourage apathy, but they also mask the poor performance (LCD) of the workers. In effect they are bullied into keeping crap workers *AND* paying them a lot of money.

Instead of being pro-active to improve the image and performance of the union, the union bands together and lets their workers get away with this crap. Any sign of bowing to management's whims is taken as a sign of weakness. In effect the union is no worse than a bully, they can't back down, they can't sidestep, they can only fight and fight hard. Their method is fighting is "our way or the highway". Which is a great strategy to solve issues. :disa:

I compared my wages to those of a union worker as a simple juxtaposition. I work damn hard, I am educated, and I am very good at what I do. My labor is very skilled and it takes a lot of thought to do it, yet I don't get paid as much. Why? Because my experience *AND* education *AND* skills aren't in line yet. Once those three are, then the bux come.

However, you take an unskilled job, no education, no thought, no drive, and you STILL pay them more than 70% of the workers in the workforce. WHY!?! Not because they deserve it but because they bully themselves to getting paid MORE than they should. Then they sit on their asses and STILL produce crap work!

Not saying that this is everywhere or every union worker, but the union *encourages* this behavior, further reinforcing it. Then they turn around and fight modernization and efficiency by saying it will reduce their overpaid and underskilled and underworked jobs.

It is a distortion in the economy that needs to be fixed.

You assume a lot and have a distorted impression of those who Organize in their workplace even though you admit you and your family have benefited greatly from what otherwise would have been very destructive to your family had it not been for the Union correcting the issues. Regarding rose colored glasses, can you provide an example? I can provide you with the paragraph ["Tell me about it. Unfortunately there were, and possibly still are, some Unions which were/are not doing everything as they should have been doing them and hurt some of their members. -With great power comes great responsibility. This, along with a lot of misconceptions, has hurt the credibility of organizing Unions with a lot of people but the more knowlegeable people become of what Unions stand for and how they are needed, the more open they will be to forming one in their workplace. I can compare it to the WalMonster, initially most people loved Walmart and it could do no wrong. Now, there is much more resentment towards Walmart because people are seeing it's effect on communities as a whole-tides turn, some just take longer than others."] which is just above your post accusing me of looking through rose colored glasses. Unions are not perfect Union-less is even less perfect!


This is true. You can't pretend that there hasn't (and isn't) mob connections with organized labor. I didn't get the impression that Merlin meant that all unions were affiliated with organized crime.

You didn't get that impression? Really?
Nice thought but the real reason has to do with organized crime - always big in the unions.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I know employees have the right to vote to form a union, but can they vote to get rid of an existing union? Does this ever happen?

[Nija]

I know employees have the right to vote to form a union, but can they vote to get rid of an existing union? Does this ever happen?
<joke>
That would be against the union rules
</joke>

[INeedAVacation]

I know employees have the right to vote to form a union, but can they vote to get rid of an existing union? Does this ever happen?

Awesome question!! The answer is yes. Workers may vote to form a Union in their workplace with a majority vote and the same is true if the employees were to choose to disban their Union (the staff of the Union office have no vote in the matter, it is 100% decided by the membership).-Quite contrary to Nija's joke.

Incidentally, I've heard of several instances where management convinced the employees they would love to give them a better deal but the Union would not allow them to. The employees voted out the Union and, much to their suprise, management didn't make good on any of their promises. It took a lot of hard work for the employee's to have the Union reinstituted but they were able to have that happen. (Their previous Union was more than willing to have them back, it's just that the legal process for Union recognition can take a long time, especially if management challenges the vote, stalls, doesn't negotiate in good faith, etc.


I've also been aware of several Union's memberships who choose to vote out their current Union affiliation in favor of a different one which they felt would be to their advantage; I'm sure sometimes they were right.-Before selecting a Union, I encourage people to shop around.

[Airencracken]

At my place of work, we actually have an anti-establishment (teamster upper guys) paper that circulates.

[INeedAVacation]

At my place of work, we actually have an anti-establishment (teamster upper guys) paper that circulates.

I'm not sure I understand what you're refering to. Can you explain what this is?

[Airencracken]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but it's basically a paper, by teamsters that don't like the current officals of the union and point out all the corruption. If I get my hands on a copy I'll post an article/link.

[INeedAVacation]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but it's basically a paper, by teamsters that don't like the current officals of the union and point out all the corruption. If I get my hands on a copy I'll post an article/link.


Oh, I see, yeah when you have such a Democratic enviornment you get to hear a lot of different opinions; obviously this is can be good and at other times not so good. Most likely the current elected officials and their critics are both trying to do what they believe is the best thing for the members, unfortunately though it appears some of them don't agree on what that may be.-Kind of like voting for the President of the U.S., we don't all agree on who the President whould be but we took a vote and whoever has the most votes is it, not everyone will agree the President is doing what is the best for the Country so you'll hear about their opinions.

[Airencracken]

Pretty much. I'm okay w/ the teamsters for now. They really are protecting my intrests and making UPS a safer place to work. I still think much more could be done though.

[INeedAVacation]

Pretty much. I'm okay w/ the teamsters for now. They really are protecting my intrests and making UPS a safer place to work. I still think much more could be done though.

Absolutely, when there are elections for the office staff, you and your coworkers vote for the best candidate....

[Nija]

Awesome question!! The answer is yes. Workers may vote to form a Union in their workplace with a majority vote and the same is true if the employees were to choose to disban their Union (the staff of the Union office have no vote in the matter, it is 100% decided by the membership).-Quite contrary to Nija's joke.

:pfft:
Not my fault if you don't like my humor. :P

[INeedAVacation]

:pfft:
Not my fault if you don't like my humor. :P

Nah, you're fine. Hold still so I can get that fly that just landed on your head. :bash:

[Nija]

Your hammer falls harmlessly to the floor because, as every knows, I am covered in a impenetrable force-field (http://www.nijaizkewl.com/images/personal/fun/ky.jpg).

That's right, tremble in fear of me!

[INeedAVacation]

Your hammer falls harmlessly to the floor because, as every knows, I am covered in a impenetrable force-field (http://www.nijaizkewl.com/images/personal/fun/ky.jpg).

That's right, tremble in fear of me!

Whoa..tht's sme cloase up!! I couldd wriite better were I not blind nw.....thanks :thud:

[Merlin]

Most likely the current elected officials and their critics are both trying to do what they believe is the best thing for the members, unfortunately though it appears some of them don't agree on what that may be.
Or even more most likely :cool: it is one corrupt group vying for power over a different corrupt group. Kind of like small town politics.

[Airencracken]

Or even more most likely :cool: it is one corrupt group vying for power over a different corrupt group. Kind of like small town politics.

Ding! Not last place!

That's pretty much what a union is. A large bueracratic body that is corrupted, but a little bit more so in favor of the employee.

[INeedAVacation]

Or even more most likely :cool: it is one corrupt group vying for power over a different corrupt group. Kind of like small town politics.

Why would that be, "even more likely"? So if you and your coworkers legally organized together to negotiate collectively for better working conditions that would automatically make you corrupt? That seems pretty narrow minded (not to mention wrong) to me.... I wouldn't stereotype all Unions as being corrupt, imperfect, yes, but not corrupt [could you give me an example of a civilization which is perfect?-since there are no perfect civilizations there shouldn't be any civilizations....yes?no?].-Obviously there are no 'perfect' circumstances but you go with the one you belive to work best. I think that's what Airencracken intended; that Unions are (imperfect) people bargaining collectively who, obviously, are in favor of gaining decent working conditions.

[Airencracken]

I would stereotype all unions as being corrupt just because they involve a lot of people in a hierarchal power system. The only benefit is that most/some of the time, the corruption doesn't interfere with the goal of gettting better working conditions, however it rears it's head in other ways, such as dipping into the strike fund. :hmm:

[INeedAVacation]

I would stereotype all unions as being corrupt just because they involve a lot of people in a hierarchal power system. The only benefit is that most/some of the time, the corruption doesn't interfere with the goal of gettting better working conditions, however it rears it's head in other ways, such as dipping into the strike fund. :hmm:

That's painting with a very broad brush and basically intimates that every organization everywhere is corrupt based on the assumption that there is at least one person who is not doing his/her best to do work for the good of the membership. This is why it is a bad choice to stereotype, but that's your perogative... :disa:

[Airencracken]

I just basically believe everyone is corrupt.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Well, INAV, while you haven't yet convinced me that unions are best, you have convinced me that union proponents aren't totally evil. You do a good job as a union evangelist. :thumbup:

[INeedAVacation]

Well, INAV, while you haven't yet convinced me that unions are best, you have convinced me that union proponents aren't totally evil. You do a good job as a union evangelist. :thumbup:

Wow, that's quite a compliment......I think. My goal isn't necessarily to convince anyone that Unions are best, moreso to convince people to research the facts themselves and become better educated regarding their option to Organize. It's unfortunate there are so many people who really don't know the benefits of forming a Union but are decidedly against the idea; don't say 'no' when you don't really 'know'. :D

[BrewMaster]

"They are there to learn, not make money".-Are you serious? As if the two must be mutually exclusive! They may be there to learn but they also have financial obligations, just like everyone else. What they are seeking is not outrageous and althought they may not have been successful with their attempt yet, doesn't mean they will never be.

It's interesting how you state as a fact that "about half of the TAs did not walk out because they recognized how stupid it was to demand more." What information do you have which supports your assumption? For those who choose not to demonstrate I'm sure they may have various reasons. Some of them may agree with you that they are worth less than what their fellow coworkers are trying to gain for them, others may have not had the strength to stand up for themselves, perhaps some are stretched too thin financially to work towards gaining themselves decent wages/benefits.
for someone who wasn't there (I assume) you sure do think you know a lot about the UCLA TAs. How do I know that half did not walk out? That number came from the union itself and the Daily Bruin newspaper. How do I know tht they didn't walk because they knew it was a stupid idea? Well, every TA I talk to that week (10 TAs for my 4 classes, plus all 8 grad students/TAs in my research) plus every TA interviewed in the Bruin that didn't walk pretty much said the same thing. They all agreed that the union was overhyping the situation and there was no reason to walk out since they were well taken care of. Go search the Daily Bruin archives from 2001 and 2002 and you'll see it all.

[INeedAVacation]

for someone who wasn't there (I assume) you sure do think you know a lot about the UCLA TAs. How do I know that half did not walk out? That number came from the union itself and the Daily Bruin newspaper. How do I know tht they didn't walk because they knew it was a stupid idea? Well, every TA I talk to that week (10 TAs for my 4 classes, plus all 8 grad students/TAs in my research) plus every TA interviewed in the Bruin that didn't walk pretty much said the same thing. They all agreed that the union was overhyping the situation and there was no reason to walk out since they were well taken care of. Go search the Daily Bruin archives from 2001 and 2002 and you'll see it all.

I see, so because the people you spoke with, "pretty much said the same thing", "about half of the TAs did not walk out because they recognized how stupid it was to demand more." I don't pretend that some of the people aren't satisfied with the current situation, but I do believe at least half are so discontent that they choose to demonstrate. I also believe that of the ones who did not choose to demonstrate, each had their own reasons for not doing so, and not all were for the sole and simplistic one you stereotyped.-Financial reasons may have been the most difficult hurdle for some.

Also, I think you deserve some credit for trying to better understand the issue by speaking with people who are directly involved ( :thumbup: ) but why would you form your opinion by only speaking with the people who choose not to demonstrate as opposed to also getting the perspective of the people who did choose to demonstrate? (18+ to 0 [ :thumbdown ])

[WhiskeyPapa]

Wow, that's quite a compliment......I think. My goal isn't necessarily to convince anyone that Unions are best, moreso to convince people to research the facts themselves and become better educated regarding their option to Organize. It's unfortunate there are so many people who really don't know the benefits of forming a Union but are decidedly against the idea; don't say 'no' when you don't really 'know'. :DYeah, it was a compliment! It's easy for me to say "no, unions suck" since I'm in an industry (tech) where unions are far off. If my son came to me and said "Dad, I'm joing a group to promote a union at my place of employment, what should I do?" I probably wouldn't tell him he's stupid. I'd do exactly as you suggest and help him research and investigate.

Now, if he came up to me and said "Dad, I'm voting Democrat." Well, that would be a different story... :D

[cheapie]

doesn't joining a union = voting dem? ;)

[INeedAVacation]

Yeah, it was a compliment! It's easy for me to say "no, unions suck" since I'm in an industry (tech) where unions are far off. If my son came to me and said "Dad, I'm joing a group to promote a union at my place of employment, what should I do?" I probably wouldn't tell him he's stupid. I'd do exactly as you suggest and help him research and investigate.

Now, if he came up to me and said "Dad, I'm voting Democrat." Well, that would be a different story... :D


Yes, everyone in the "Tech" industry is 'uniquely' super intelligent and could not benefit at all from Organizing like all the other industries do. :bow:
You may benefit from your own 'hypothetical' advice by looking at the stats as documented by the department of labor which has proof of the correlation between better benefits (i.e. wages, health insurance, etc.) for Organized workers as compared to at will workers in comparable positions(regardless of the occupation). :idea:


doesn't joining a union = voting dem? ;)

Unfortunately not always, occasionally some Unions members may excercise poor judgement at times and vote Republican.....but, come on, as close as they might be, nobody's perfect. :naughty:

[INeedAVacation]

I just basically believe everyone is corrupt.

That really waters down the word, "corrupt" then, doesn't it?

[ialsohaveadream]

doesn't joining a union = voting dem? ;)
Nah, you don't have to vote Dem....you just have to give them your money. ;)

[Airencracken]

That really waters down the word, "corrupt" then, doesn't it?

Perhaps. Maybe I should say everyone is primarily self-serving? And everyone accomplishes their ends by cheating, lying, and distorting the facts/truth. Slanting, stealing, etc. :shrug: Semantic difference if you ask me.

[INeedAVacation]

Perhaps. Maybe I should say everyone is primarily self-serving? And everyone accomplishes their ends by cheating, lying, and distorting the facts/truth. Slanting, stealing, etc. :shrug: Semantic difference if you ask me.

I believe your reference to "everyone" being as you described is not a rational perspective. I would hope we all know people who are not at all as you described "everyone" to be; I know I do. :shakehand

[ShawnLee]

Nah, you don't have to vote Dem....you just have to give them your money. ;)I think that's the point of contention with a lot of people. I remember that a prof I knew wanted to put in for union dues with the profs' union but didn't want to pay the political bargaining side of it since he disagreed with their poliitcs, and was effectively told to shove it. Hence start the chants that unions suck.

[INeedAVacation]

I think that's the point of contention with a lot of people. I remember that a prof I knew wanted to put in for union dues with the profs' union but didn't want to pay the political bargaining side of it since he disagreed with their poliitcs, and was effectively told to shove it. Hence start the chants that unions suck.

This is a prime example of misinformation which is assumed (apparently by, "a lot of people") to be correct but in reality is 180 degress from right! Actually, the law states that if any Union member chooses not to allow any of his/her due money to be allocated for political purposes he/she may sign a card stating so and none of their dues monies will be spent for political purposes. It seems the 'prof' was/is not aware of this law, and neither was/is the people he approached about his concern; or this is not an accurate description of what really happened.-In any case, it's wrong.

[ShawnLee]

This is a prime example of misinformation which is assumed (apparently by, "a lot of people") to be correct but in reality is 180 degress from right! Actually, the law states that if any Union member chooses not to allow any of his/her due money to be allocated for political purposes he/she may sign a card stating so and none of their dues monies will be spent for political purposes. It seems the 'prof' was/is not aware of this law, and neither was/is the people he approached about his concern; or this is not an accurate description of what really happened.-In any case, it's wrong.Actually, this prof was well aware of this. In fact, he was in the process of yelling at people. The point was that despite this law, they still wanted to shaft him with this.

[Merlin]

Yeah, just because it is "the law" does not mean that I would put any faith in it happening. Any organization like that, not just Unions, will still do with it as they see fit.

[INeedAVacation]

Actually, this prof was well aware of this. In fact, he was in the process of yelling at people. The point was that despite this law, they still wanted to shaft him with this.

If this professor was indeed told to, "shove it" this may have been prompted by his, "yelling at the people" rather than his desire to keep any of his dues from being used for political purposes.

[INeedAVacation]

Yeah, just because it is "the law" does not mean that I would put any faith in it happening. Any organization like that, not just Unions, will still do with it as they see fit.

We are not talking about a huge amount of money here; the vast majority of members do not choose to exclude any of their dues money being spent on representing them on another level (the political arena) as opposed to just representing them on one level (in their place of work). I think you're really being too skeptical here, members who choose not to support representation for themselves for political expeditures (i.e. Teamsters vs. big business re: change in work hours for OTR truck drivers) should have their choice respected. Any time that their choice is not followed would more likely be due to an error as opposed to a willful intent to deceive.