• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP Politicians banned from Wisconsin Labor Day Parades

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I would never take a job where I had to join a union. I never want negotiations for my pay/benefits to be in anyone else's hands but my own. I also enjoy the freedom to make my own choices.
 
Ausm said:
Up North here we call them the Right to work for less states or the Right to get fired hehehe

I should have clarified them as Union worker rights.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is more often right to be fired than a right to work. But the principle that a job is a contract between an individual and an employer is important to us.
 
zsdersw said:
I would never take a job where I had to join a union. I never want negotiations for my pay/benefits to be in anyone else's hands but my own. I also enjoy the freedom to make my own choices.
Click to expand...

The local trade Unions where I live are beneficial to me because then my employer makes my wage and compensation competitive to theirs.
 
zsdersw said:
More pay for work of the same or less quality/productivity is never a good thing.
Click to expand...
But except for government contracts, trade union shops still compete in the open market. Non-union shops generally pay less and have less training, so that while they do better during hard times, they have to compete solely on price. In good economic times, people generally appreciate the better value of better-trained union shops. (In no small part because the better tradesmen migrate to the better-paying and more secure union jobs, so that non-union shops have to pay union wages or better if they want to attract and keep the same quality employees and therefore have to charge similar prices.)

I was quite anti-union for pretty much the same reasons as you before I switched to AEC engineering. Now if I had my druthers, I'd make all my jobs union-only. It's not that I haven't worked with some decent (and even a couple good) non-union shops, but there is a minimum quality in a union shop, things such as enforcing the ratio of "helpers" (often meaning illegals) to journeymen, that simply isn't there in non-union shops which may be good or may be truly awful. While I appreciate the one-on-one negotiations rather than lumping the very good with the marginally acceptable and I'm glad Tennessee is a right-to-work state as a matter of basic freedom, I also appreciate that I've never gotten a really bad job from a union contractor. With low-bid contracts, we've gotten electrical contractors that weren't qualified to flip a light switch, much less wire a building. We've gotten people who quite literally did not know how to use a wire nut, so that weeks later all their connections start springing open. People who told me all the exterior HID downlights had "shorts" because every time they inserted a 100W A19 incandescent lamp, the 4,000V starting pulse of the metal halide ballast immediately blew it so hard that the flying fragments of white hot filament made little dimples in the glass. People who cut a hole in a two-hour rated fire partition and screwed a plastic fire alarm speaker/strobe to the sheetrock.

Shit like that never happens with union shops. They aren't all great, but they're always competent. If I were an electrician, I'd definitely be in the union.
 
zsdersw said:
I would never take a job where I had to join a union. I never want negotiations for my pay/benefits to be in anyone else's hands but my own. I also enjoy the freedom to make my own choices.
Click to expand...

So, you're clueless how power works in labor, and you would rather make much less for the illusion you have control than make more thanks to a union.
 
Repubs weren't banned- they just weren't invited.

Their participation would seem more than a teensy bit hypocritical, anyway, given that their basic intent is to emasculate organized labor, send the collected scrotums in a love letter to the Koch Bros...

Not exactly in keeping with the history of the whole thing-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day
 
When did "labor day" become "organized labor day" ??

According to the Department of Labor:
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

I always thought it was a celebration of ALL workers, not just union members...
 
public unions don't make sense, i mean being a public worker means you're part of the union which is government...
 
Many many moons ago. I was working a lower wage job . On a line. I would do 3 to anyone elses 1 . Raises came up . and I brought up the fact that I did 2x as anyone else on the line. They quickly pointed out to me that the amount of work each person can do is dependent on that person . Even tho they are making the same effort as me . and I would recieve the exact same raise as others. I said OH really. The next week I cut back to matching everyone else . Management was all over me . As they had to add 2 more people to the line. They asked whats going on. I replied. Since last week a got older and wiser . They said I was standing around . I replied I am doing the exact same amount of work as everyone else on my line . They told me if I stood around I was fired . So I copied the way the others were working staying busy making unneccesary moves . They called me in on the rug again . Complaining I changed how I was working . I asked if I was doing anything differant than others . They said no . But your not doing the same amount of work you were doing . I replied I am staying busy all the time. They replied were going to have to let you go as we believe your sluffing off. I said fine gave them some words that I use only in person which is unpleasant. Said I wish you and your lazy employees the worst of luck . As it turned out my wish was fulfilled 1 month later. I had the last laugh.
 
ProfJohn said:
When did "labor day" become "organized labor day" ??

According to the Department of Labor:
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

I always thought it was a celebration of ALL workers, not just union members...
Click to expand...

Read the links that have already been posted...and YES, Labor Day was originally created to recognize UNION labor.


ProfJohn said:
BTW can we ban Democrats from memorial day parades now? 4th of July and Flag Day as well?
Click to expand...

Why would you want to do that? Afraid to have people there who might have actually served?

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks/
 
Craig234 said:
So, you're clueless how power works in labor,
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I'm very familiar with labor unions, particularly WEAC and AFSCME.

and you would rather make much less for the illusion you have control than make more thanks to a union.
Click to expand...

I make plenty.. more than anyone in the unions in the districts I've worked in. My skills, experience, and abilities... coupled with the level of responsibility I have... is worth a lot of money, and its value didn't get that high because of unions. IT people, particularly IT management, generally are not in unions.

But by all means, Craig, continue to talk authoritatively on a subject you don't know anything about. It continues to amuse us all.
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
It's your team that's all anti-gubmint. Figure it out.

Oh, and there never would have been a "Labor Day" if it weren't for *Organized Labor*.
Click to expand...

Also Organized labor gave us the following:

Child labor laws,
Disability insurance,
Fair pay for work performed,
Forty hour work weeks,
Pensions,
Over and double-time pay,
Retention of American jobs on American soil,
Retirement,
Safety regulations,
Survivor's benefits and
Workplace health insurance

All things some Repugs enjoy but continue to bash the institution that brought these worker rights to fruition. In the Repubs wildest wet dream all workers would work for minimum wage and LIKE it .
 
Ausm said:
Also Organized labor gave us the following:

Child labor laws,
Disability insurance,
Fair pay for work performed,
Forty hour work weeks,
Pensions,
Over and double-time pay,
Retention of American jobs on American soil,
Retirement,
Safety regulations,
Survivor's benefits and
Workplace health insurance

All things some Repugs enjoy but continue to bash the institution that brought these worker rights to fruition. In the Repubs wildest wet dream all workers would work for minimum wage and LIKE it .
Click to expand...

A lot of those, especially child labor laws, and workplace protections were being enacted at the turn of the century. About 30 years before big labor truely got big in the 30s.
 
Craig234 said:
It's called 'accountability'. Labor unions organize Labor Day event, exclude enemies of Labor. Corporate conventions exclude opponents. They don't have parades.
Click to expand...

Craig, that is perfectly reasonable and I would agree with it. However, the parade is paid for by the taxpayers---not the unions. If the unions foot the bill then they have every right to ban Republicans.
 
JockoJohnson said:
Craig, that is perfectly reasonable and I would agree with it. However, the parade is paid for by the taxpayers---not the unions. If the unions foot the bill then they have every right to ban Republicans.
Click to expand...

If it's paid for by the taxpayers, that does raise questions. But it goes into a gray area.

For example, say a parade had a person being honored - take the Rose Parade. If someone had just insulted the parade or attacked California, that might affect picking them over others. So are these positions limited? if so, I could see de-prioritizing labor attackers in a labor parade.

Or is there room for all officials and they just said 'you aren't invited to positions of honor'?

Then a question is, who else has not been invited for what reasons, what are the criterion?

How did the unions come to decide who is invited? If the idea has long been for unions to decide who to honor, that seems in keeping.

They are still invited to attend, so that legal issue isn't an issue, but it starts to get questionable if normally all the politicians are invited.

They're still the elected officials, even if they are behaving badly.
 
Genx87 said:
A lot of those, especially child labor laws, and workplace protections were being enacted at the turn of the century. About 30 years before big labor truely got big in the 30s.
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States


The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions began in 1881 under the leadership of Samuel Gompers. Like the National Labor Union, it was a federation of different unions and did not directly enroll workers. Its original goals were to encourage the formation of trade unions and to obtain legislation, such as prohibition of child labor, a national eight hour day, and exclusion of foreign contract workers. The Federation made some efforts to obtain favorable legislation, but had little success in organizing or chartering new unions. It came out in support of the proposal, traditionally attributed to Peter J. McGuire of the Carpenters Union, for a national Labor Day holiday on the first Monday in September, and threw itself behind the eight hour movement, which sought to limit the workday by either legislation or union organizing.
In 1886, as the relations between the trade union movement and the Knights of Labor worsened, McGuire and other union leaders called for a convention to be held at Columbus, Ohio on December 8. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions merged with the new organization, known as the American Federation of Labor or AFL, formed at that convention.[13]
The AFL was formed in large part because of the dissatisfaction of many trade union leaders with the Knights of Labor, an organization that contained many trade unions and that had played a leading role in some of the largest strikes of the era. The new AFL distinguished itself from the Knights by emphasizing the autonomy of each trade union affiliated with it and limiting membership to workers and organizations made up of workers, unlike the Knights which, because of its producerist focus, welcomed some who were not wage workers.
The AFL grew steadily in the late 19th century while the Knights all but disappeared. Although Gompers at first advocated something like industrial unionism, he retreated from that in the face of opposition from the craft unions that made up most of the AFL.
The unions of the AFL were composed primarily of skilled men; unskilled workers, African-Americans, and women were generally excluded. The AFL saw women as threatening the jobs of men, since they often worked for lower wages. The AFL provided little to no support for women's attempts to unionize.[14]
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
If it's paid for by the taxpayers, that does raise questions. But it goes into a gray area.

For example, say a parade had a person being honored - take the Rose Parade. If someone had just insulted the parade or attacked California, that might affect picking them over others. So are these positions limited? if so, I could see de-prioritizing labor attackers in a labor parade.

Or is there room for all officials and they just said 'you aren't invited to positions of honor'?

Then a question is, who else has not been invited for what reasons, what are the criterion?

How did the unions come to decide who is invited? If the idea has long been for unions to decide who to honor, that seems in keeping.

They are still invited to attend, so that legal issue isn't an issue, but it starts to get questionable if normally all the politicians are invited.

They're still the elected officials, even if they are behaving badly.
Click to expand...

I missed the part about the unions deciding who gets invited. If that is the case, it sounds like tradition. If they aren't technically invited but can still show up, I don't see a problem. It sounds more like a message to the Republicans than anything else.
 
werepossum said:
Latest development - mayor says that if union organizers ban Republicans from participating, then the unions must pay for the cost of staging the parade, just like any other political rally. Good for him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-labor-day-wisconsin-idUSTRE77T64220110830
Click to expand...

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/..._Announcement_on_Wausau_Parade_Wednesday.html

The Marathon County Labor Council is allowing Republicans to march in the Labor Day Parade.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top