unions continue to show their scumbaggery

[Red Dawn]

So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Now, they're just out to squeeze every last penny from whomever they can.

Damn straight they are just like employers are trying to squeeze every penny out of their workers. I won't say I particularly like Unions and that they're never overpaid, but it's a result free market (employees have nowhere near the power of employers and thus need to band together to have equal bargaining power) and it works both ways. To go against unions is to support communism. You're not a Communist/Marxist/Socialist are you?

Umm, labor unions are strongly connected with socialism. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

Obviously they have smart lawyers. So you think we should be able to keep them from using the law to help their interests?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

Obviously they have smart lawyers. So you think we should be able to keep them from using the law to help their interests?

really? you think because they hire some lawyers to help their cause, what they're doing is right?

lets put it this way.
you're trying to start up a company.
you need to hire some folks to help you out.
you're strapped for cash and you'd like to hire the best workers you can for the money.
you come across a reputable company you can hire for a good price. you're about to agree to terms with them.
next day union comes knocking on your door and says, "sir, we understand you're trying to do XXX. we have the right guys for this job, but it will cost you twice as much.
sign this contract on the dotted line or else you might run into some legal trouble that will cost you more to get out of than if you were to just sign with us.

how is that right in anyone's pov?

 

[babylon5]

Environment is the victim here

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

Obviously they have smart lawyers. So you think we should be able to keep them from using the law to help their interests?

really? you think because they hire some lawyers to help their cause, what they're doing is right?

lets put it this way.
you're trying to start up a company.
you need to hire some folks to help you out.
you're strapped for cash and you'd like to hire the best workers you can for the money.
you come across a reputable company you can hire for a good price. you're about to agree to terms with them.
next day union comes knocking on your door and says, "sir, we understand you're trying to do XXX. we have the right guys for this job, but it will cost you twice as much.
sign this contract on the dotted line or else you might run into some legal trouble that will cost you more to get out of than if you were to just sign with us.

how is that right in anyone's pov?

Easy, hire the Non Union Contractors. Companies do it all the time.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Now, they're just out to squeeze every last penny from whomever they can.

Damn straight they are just like employers are trying to squeeze every penny out of their workers. I won't say I particularly like Unions and that they're never overpaid, but it's a result free market (employees have nowhere near the power of employers and thus need to band together to have equal bargaining power) and it works both ways. To go against unions is to support communism. You're not a Communist/Marxist/Socialist are you?

Umm, labor unions are strongly connected with socialism. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with either.

Why do socialist governments always outlaw unions?

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It never ceases to amaze me that some people when confronted with corporations that bargain hard say "well that's capitalism, don't like it? Too bad.", but when confronted with unions that do the same compare them to say... the mob.

As usual, Eskimo is right; there's some bizarre psychology that makes working-class people turn on each other a lot more than they unite against their 'real enemy'.

Show them a billionare exploiting thousands of people for big bucks, and they praise and defend him, but show them a person they think is getting a few government dollars or a few dollars higher wages as a union member and they lose their minds in hate for the person.

Makes it awfully easy for the propagandists. Any time there are rumblings against the wealthy, just toss out some story about welfrare fraud, and they're back to that.

The majority of companies in the US are not owned by billionaires. They are owned by normal people who put everything they own on the line in order to make a better living for themselves.

You say you smell ideology, well I wouldn't say ideology as much as life experience.
I have seen a small business owner literally cry when his business became unionized. Within two years, the union basically forced him to close the business. The union bosses convince the employees that the company is making incredible profits and they should be getting more money (which equals more money to the union bosses). In reality most businesses operate on small profit margins. When the unions force the company to increase wages and benefits through the treat of strikes, it makes running the business a losing proposition.

I think you're confusing a bit the theory I'm talking about with more specific problems. Unions aren't perfect, and can be abuseive as well.

I didn't use a billionare in the example because it's the norm, I used it because it best illustrates the issue I was discussing.

If we were talking about people sympathizing with a small business owner with low marging, it would not illustrate what I was talking about - and would not be the psychological issue I was discussing. It's understandable to be sympathetic towards that small business owner.

Indeed I'm sympathetic to the story you describe, though I suspect there's another side to it, since it doens't make a lot of sense for the union to put him out of business.

I don't think small business owners being put out of business by crazy unions is the norm either.

You say that the union pushing for higher wages makes it a losing proposition. I disagree; there's a happy middle. The wages are a result of the competing pressures.

It's one of those things that is messy, but works better than either alternative, where wages go too high or too low. There's no easy answer, no one to sit on the government 'agency of wage setting' to say 'that's the right amount'. It's a negotiation, and the current system works ok, but it tilted a bit against workers in recent decades, hence their not getting any of the econoic growth after inflation for 25 years, all of it going to the top wealthiest people.

But that's the big situation, and I have sympathy for your small business story.

I understand what you are trying to say, and as I mentioned before, Unions did a great service to this country when we entered the industrial age. My feeling is that our society has advanced to the point where unions, at least in their current form, are no longer necessary. People who are asking for ultra low wages are a fringe, akin to those who think taxes are illegal.

Unions have now become too powerful and are using that power to force companies into complying with their demands.

To elaborate on my small business story, as soon as the workers unionized, they had to pay the union their fees. This, in turn, caused them to demand higher wages right off the bat. They figured now that they have the power, a few dollars more for me won't be a big deal. The reality is that a small amount, multiplied by 30 employees quickly becomes a big deal. The higher wages, means higher payroll taxes, which in turn means higher insurance taxes, etc. In order to stay in business, the only thing left to do is to increase prices. In a highly competitive market, it only took two years to lose the clients to lower priced (non union) competitors.

One other bit of experience,
My company deals with several film and production companies. One of these companies was recently unionized and one the the first things the union did was force the company to stop doing business with non union service companies. I now get secret calls from some of the people we used to deal with. They pay out of their own pocket to use our service because the union company they now employ is so unreliable. What a great way to make a company more competitive, unionize it....

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

Obviously they have smart lawyers. So you think we should be able to keep them from using the law to help their interests?

really? you think because they hire some lawyers to help their cause, what they're doing is right?

lets put it this way.
you're trying to start up a company.
you need to hire some folks to help you out.
you're strapped for cash and you'd like to hire the best workers you can for the money.
you come across a reputable company you can hire for a good price. you're about to agree to terms with them.
next day union comes knocking on your door and says, "sir, we understand you're trying to do XXX. we have the right guys for this job, but it will cost you twice as much.
sign this contract on the dotted line or else you might run into some legal trouble that will cost you more to get out of than if you were to just sign with us.

how is that right in anyone's pov?

Easy, hire the Non Union Contractors. Companies do it all the time.

so now you've entered yourself into a long-drawn legal battle that's going to cost you a ton. meanwhile your competitors have already laid out the groundwork for their project leaving you months behind.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

I have seen a small business owner literally cry when his business became unionized. Within two years, the union basically forced him to close the business. The union bosses convince the employees that the company is making incredible profits and they should be getting more money (which equals more money to the union bosses).

Doesn't sound like that Union had it's members best interest at heart, There are plenty of examples of Unions making concessions so the employer can continue business and keep their members employed.Back in the day when I was a member of the Carpenters Union they were able to get a 4 day work week every other week. Unfortunately this hurt the Contractors who were able to show the Union that having every other Friday off cost them so the Union did away with it and went back to 5 day work weeks (40 Hour). Now I liked having every other Friday off but I liked having a job better as did the rest of the membership so we voted to do away with it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

Obviously they have smart lawyers. So you think we should be able to keep them from using the law to help their interests?

really? you think because they hire some lawyers to help their cause, what they're doing is right?

lets put it this way.
you're trying to start up a company.
you need to hire some folks to help you out.
you're strapped for cash and you'd like to hire the best workers you can for the money.
you come across a reputable company you can hire for a good price. you're about to agree to terms with them.
next day union comes knocking on your door and says, "sir, we understand you're trying to do XXX. we have the right guys for this job, but it will cost you twice as much.
sign this contract on the dotted line or else you might run into some legal trouble that will cost you more to get out of than if you were to just sign with us.

how is that right in anyone's pov?

Easy, hire the Non Union Contractors. Companies do it all the time.

so now you've entered yourself into a long-drawn legal battle that's going to cost you a ton. meanwhile your competitors have already laid out the groundwork for their project leaving you months behind.

So it's cheaper to hire Union then. Yeah if I were a Scab I'd think they sucked but if I was a member of those unions I'd feel they were looking out for my best interests.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: SigArms08
You mention bill collectors from the phone company - if a person or company is unsatisfied with the service and/or cost provided by said phone company, they can easily switch to another company that can better meet their needs. Same is true of credit cards, unless you're too ignorant and have charged up some massive debt that is unmanageable. Using the IRS as a comparison is incredibly poor as paying taxes is a legal requirement of each citizen. Are you suggesting that it should be a legal requirement to utilize unionized labor?

You really missed what the analogy was about. The discussion was about the statement that corporations not 'liking' to deal with unions, and my pointing out how silly it was.

I don't care what phone company or credit card company you pick, you aren't expected to 'like' dealing with their bill collectors. That was the point.

That the corporations 'liking' to deal with the unions isn't the issue, of *course* they don't 'like' to deal with people that are going to negotiate for higher wages. So what?

JeepinEd addressed your concern over wages. What say you to the professions that aren't unionized? Are those people, including myself, all working for slave wages?

No, first, unions have an effect on non-union industries; non-union companies are still competing for workers with union shops. Second, unions aren't the whole story.

There are a variety of things that cause wages to increase, including a variety of government policies that support it. Unions are just one part.

I don't know, Craig.....does everybody deserve a blanket raise when its time for review? Those who have worked harder, been more responsible and productive in their roles should earn a higher wage than the individual who is a chronic dirtbag. On many occasions, its incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for an employer to get rid of the few undesirables due to the blanket protection that unions typically offer (I'm refering to the UAW here as I personally have years of experience working as a salaried person within that absurd environment). As a manager or company, would you like dealing with unions when the expectation is that your business unit is profitable in a competitive marketplace?
I have a few friends who own and manage their own businesses. I'll run your analogy by them to gain an understanding of their perspective, too.

"Non-union companies are still competing for workers with union shops."
In this global economy? I'm not gung-ho on free trade like NAFTA, mind you. Would be nice if we had fair trade, though.

"There are a variety of things that cause wages to increase, including a variety of government policies that support it. Unions are just one part"
Increasing wages beyond that of inflation without sufficient cause and/or increased productivity is not a great thing for the economy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So what do you guys propose, that we outlaw workers from organizing ?

how about, competing on price, quality of work, etc. instead of unethical strongarm practices as mentioned in the article?

Obviously they have smart lawyers. So you think we should be able to keep them from using the law to help their interests?

really? you think because they hire some lawyers to help their cause, what they're doing is right?

lets put it this way.
you're trying to start up a company.
you need to hire some folks to help you out.
you're strapped for cash and you'd like to hire the best workers you can for the money.
you come across a reputable company you can hire for a good price. you're about to agree to terms with them.
next day union comes knocking on your door and says, "sir, we understand you're trying to do XXX. we have the right guys for this job, but it will cost you twice as much.
sign this contract on the dotted line or else you might run into some legal trouble that will cost you more to get out of than if you were to just sign with us.

how is that right in anyone's pov?

Easy, hire the Non Union Contractors. Companies do it all the time.

so now you've entered yourself into a long-drawn legal battle that's going to cost you a ton. meanwhile your competitors have already laid out the groundwork for their project leaving you months behind.

Again, how is this different from what companies do ALL THE TIME!?! You don't think businesses try and use the law in this way to get what they want?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: SigArms08
You mention bill collectors from the phone company - if a person or company is unsatisfied with the service and/or cost provided by said phone company, they can easily switch to another company that can better meet their needs. Same is true of credit cards, unless you're too ignorant and have charged up some massive debt that is unmanageable. Using the IRS as a comparison is incredibly poor as paying taxes is a legal requirement of each citizen. Are you suggesting that it should be a legal requirement to utilize unionized labor?

You really missed what the analogy was about. The discussion was about the statement that corporations not 'liking' to deal with unions, and my pointing out how silly it was.

I don't care what phone company or credit card company you pick, you aren't expected to 'like' dealing with their bill collectors. That was the point.

That the corporations 'liking' to deal with the unions isn't the issue, of *course* they don't 'like' to deal with people that are going to negotiate for higher wages. So what?

JeepinEd addressed your concern over wages. What say you to the professions that aren't unionized? Are those people, including myself, all working for slave wages?

No, first, unions have an effect on non-union industries; non-union companies are still competing for workers with union shops. Second, unions aren't the whole story.

There are a variety of things that cause wages to increase, including a variety of government policies that support it. Unions are just one part.

I don't know, Craig.....does everybody deserve a blanket raise when its time for review? Those who have worked harder, been more responsible and productive in their roles should earn a higher wage than the individual who is a chronic dirtbag. On many occasions, its incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for an employer to get rid of the few undesirables due to the blanket protection that unions typically offer (I'm refering to the UAW here as I personally have years of experience working as a salaried person within that absurd environment). As a manager or company, would you like dealing with unions when the expectation is that your business unit is profitable in a competitive marketplace?
I have a few friends who own and manage their own businesses. I'll run your analogy by them to gain an understanding of their perspective, too.

No, I'm not crazy about when the pendulum tilts too far the union direction, either. There should be appropriate ways to deal with bad employees.

Perhaps the worst example I've seen in a long time is the BART police situation - the one with the news story earlier this year. The police chief is almost powerless there.

"Non-union companies are still competing for workers with union shops."
In this global economy? I'm not gung-ho on free trade like NAFTA, mind you. Would be nice if we had fair trade, though.

I agree, the increasingly global marketplace for labor threatens the gains of US labor, and I'm not a fan of NAFTA but do like 'fair trade'.

"There are a variety of things that cause wages to increase, including a variety of government policies that support it. Unions are just one part"
Increasing wages beyond that of inflation without sufficient cause and/or increased productivity is not a great thing for the economy.

I disagree - what if inflation is 2% and growth is 6% - why should all of the 4% in growth go to the top and none to workers? That simply increases the concentration of wealth.

There are a lot of factors, including supply and demand, that can put wages below or above any average level.

 

[redgtxdi]

I despise today's unions and cannot wait til the day they are gone!

Wait til Cali goes broke and unions are forced to suck it, laying the groundwork for all new terms for unions around the country.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I despise today's unions and cannot wait til the day they are gone!

Wait til Cali goes broke and unions are forced to suck it, laying the groundwork for all new terms for unions around the country.

hHat you despise is the ability of Blue Collar Workers to organize in order to make good wages and benenfits.

 

[sandorski]

I seriously doubt that only Unions employ such tactics.

 

[StageLeft]

This is a new one. I don't really have as big a problem with unions for non-public companies. If they want to let it happen and then be reamed indefinitely, so be it. Unions should be illegal and banned for public entities such as police and teaching.

 

[IronWing]

The question here isn't the behavior of the unions, the question is why does it take outside pressure (from unions, greenies, competitors, NIMBYs, etc) to get governments to perform/demand the completion of appropriate environmental studies for these projects as required by law? The basic framework for doing environmental studies at the federal level hasn't changed much since the 70s. Developers know what they need to do, agencies know what they are supposed to require under law. The only thing lacking is backbone on the part of the regulatory agencies.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I despise today's unions and cannot wait til the day they are gone!

Wait til Cali goes broke and unions are forced to suck it, laying the groundwork for all new terms for unions around the country.

If you live in CA you should worry that that would happen.

Without the Unions lobbying on the behalf of all workers, you could see some drastic changes evolve in worker protections at the state level.

Of course you dont belong to a Union so those changes would never effect you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bctbct
If you live in CA you should worry that that would happen.

Without the Unions lobbying on the behalf of all workers, you could see some drastic changes evolve in worker protections at the state level.

Of course you dont belong to a Union so those changes would never effect you.

Yea... the second the unions go away we are going to eliminate all work force protection laws... to hell with the voters or the people... :roll:


BTW the power of the unions have been on the decline for decades and yet we continue to get more laws aimed at protecting workers... why is that??

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yea... the second the unions go away we are going to eliminate all work force protection laws... to hell with the voters or the people... :roll:

Yes, I recall the history in the US, how the voters and the people overcame the slave labor conditions in the gilded age, without the use of unions.

Oh, wait, no they didn't, they spent decades suffering and fought fur the right to create unions - whic hof course had been illegal - and that was how they got things changed.

It was a combination of the government allowing unions, and directly passing some laws, they were related.

BTW the power of the unions have been on the decline for decades and yet we continue to get more laws aimed at protecting workers... why is that??

Actually, the decline of the unions accelerated when Reagan took office, and the workers stopped sharing in the economic growth of the county at the same time.

Since Reagan took office, for the first time in US history I now of, there has been a 25 year period where the bottom 80% of Americans have received close to zero of the economic growth of the nation after inflation, which they create; it all goes to the top, the rising tide lifted few yachts.

While unions have helped change the political culture to support some labor rights, I've seen few of these 'increasing' labor right since Reaganyou mention. What new rights?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I despise today's unions

The feeling is mutual, I suspect.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bctbct
If you live in CA you should worry that that would happen.

Without the Unions lobbying on the behalf of all workers, you could see some drastic changes evolve in worker protections at the state level.

Of course you dont belong to a Union so those changes would never effect you.

Yea... the second the unions go away we are going to eliminate all work force protection laws... to hell with the voters or the people... :roll:


BTW the power of the unions have been on the decline for decades and yet we continue to get more laws aimed at protecting workers... why is that??

Did you know that union membership was up sharply in 2008?