unions: what do you think? useful or a waste of time?

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

So a boss should be able to fire you if he doesn't like you, you're a minority, you contradict him for being an idiot etc.?

Absolutely. Except race, since that is a seperate law and illegal. Your boss owes you NOTHING except payment for services rendered. He does not owe you cradle to grave security.

Folks, taking away an employer's right to fire at will limits THEIR rights to placate you.

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

Well, the law is against your opinion. There has to be a reason for termination, and it can't be for not liking you. The unions just enforce this protection.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

So a boss should be able to fire you if he doesn't like you, you're a minority, you contradict him for being an idiot etc.?

Absolutely. Except race, since that is a seperate law and illegal. Your boss owes you NOTHING except payment for services rendered. He does not owe you cradle to grave security.

Folks, taking away an employer's right to fire at will limits THEIR rights to placate you.

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

Well, the law is against your opinion. There has to be a reason for termination, and it can't be for not liking you. The unions just enforce this protection.

I know of no such law. The reason most companies feel a need to show cause is to prevent silly lawsuits where whiny juries award ridiculous settlements. Also to prevent the employee from raping the employer's unemployment insurance.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: preslove
Well, the law is against your opinion. There has to be a reason for termination, and it can't be for not liking you. The unions just enforce this protection.

Depends on the state. Many states have laws that say the employer can fire you at any time for any reason. The federal race/gender/etc discrimination laws don't even apply to every company.
Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. Thus if you work at a company with 14 or fewer employees you can be fired based on race/gender/etc.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

So a boss should be able to fire you if he doesn't like you, you're a minority, you contradict him for being an idiot etc.?

Absolutely. Except race, since that is a seperate law and illegal. Your boss owes you NOTHING except payment for services rendered. He does not owe you cradle to grave security.

Folks, taking away an employer's right to fire at will limits THEIR rights to placate you.

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

Well, the law is against your opinion. There has to be a reason for termination, and it can't be for not liking you. The unions just enforce this protection.

What about "right to work" states?
TN is a right to work state, and I was under the impression that it meant they could fire you, whenever they wanted for whatever reason they wanted, and it was not illegal.
🙂

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Current times? Unions are a HORRIBLE thing, essentially protecting and promoting laziness and inefficiency. I hate unions, and willing members of them. Nothing but worthless sandbaggers who are afraid to work.

You know what was good before the advent of the Internet? People like you would just be peering out your windows instead of posting nonsensical viritol on message boards.

You know what was good before Unions? Slack asses like you couldnt camp a job, do nothing and keep better qualified people from working in your position.

 

[jyates]

Labor unions may become a thing of the past with so many manf. jobs going offshore.

I'm betting that manf's. talk with the unions about decreasing the cost of labor and the
union bosses say "we're not taking a cut in pay" and they some one in China is doing
their job a couple of years later for a fraction of what the union member pay scale was.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Current times? Unions are a HORRIBLE thing, essentially protecting and promoting laziness and inefficiency. I hate unions, and willing members of them. Nothing but worthless sandbaggers who are afraid to work.

You know what was good before the advent of the Internet? People like you would just be peering out your windows instead of posting nonsensical viritol on message boards.

You know what was good before Unions? Slack asses like you couldnt camp a job, do nothing and keep better qualified people from working in your position.

FYI you cum swaggling little bitch, I'm not in a Union. When I was though (Carpenters Union) punk little Nancyboys like you wouldn't last a day on the job with or without a Union card. If we didn't make our employers money we were down the road and there was nothing the Carpenters Union could or to be more precise..would do about it.

Here's a story about how things worked in the Carpenters Union in Santa Cruz. The Job Steward laid his face open with a Chainsaw and was out 5 weeks . When he came back he expected to have his job waiting for him. Bt because he showed that he was careless with the equipment the Foreman of the job, who was also a Union Member, refused to hire him back. The Job Steward went to the Union to complain about it and the Union sided with the Foreman.

When I ran work I sh!tcanned many a Union Member who weren't worth a sh!t and I had no problems with the Union except that I would have to replace them with members of the Union who had jurisdiction of that work site. If those guys who replaced them were worthless then I would let them go too!

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

I disagree with that. Suppose you've worked as a teacher for 20 years, and they decide to fire you so they could hire the niece of someone on the board of education... or suppose they fired you to avoid having to pay your higher wages since you've been there so long... Hmmmm..... it's illegal to base hiring decisions on race, etc. Then if there's no such thing as an "unjust firing", then you've found a loophole... you hire all the black applicants and Puerto Rican applicants, and just fire them all the next day... you can even brag about your companies high hiring rate of black applicants.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

I disagree with that. Suppose you've worked as a teacher for 20 years, and they decide to fire you so they could hire the niece of someone on the board of education... or suppose they fired you to avoid having to pay your higher wages since you've been there so long... Hmmmm..... it's illegal to base hiring decisions on race, etc. Then if there's no such thing as an "unjust firing", then you've found a loophole... you hire all the black applicants and Puerto Rican applicants, and just fire them all the next day... you can even brag about your companies high hiring rate of black applicants.

So we should limit the rights of employers to give additional rights to employees? How about some balance then? Say, make it illegal to quit without a good reason?

Labor is a commodity, not a social service. It is to be bought and sold at going rates set by the market. If an employee does not like what he is being paid, and his employer does not feel like paying him more, his only recourse is to quit. If the commodity drops in price, and the employee doesn't want a pay cut, the employer can fire him.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why do people completely negate the rights of employers when it comes to this subject?

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

FYI you cum swaggling little bitch, I'm not in a Union. When I was though (Carpenters Union) punk little Nancyboys like you wouldn't last a day on the job with or without a Union card. If we didn't make our employers money we were down the road and there was nothing the Carpenters Union could or to be more precise..would do about it.

Here's a story about how things worked in the Carpenters Union in Santa Cruz. The Job Steward laid his face open with a Chainsaw and was out 5 weeks . When he came back he expected to have his job waiting for him. Bt because he showed that he was careless with the equipment the Foreman of the job, who was also a Union Member, refused to hire him back. The Job Steward went to the Union to complain about it and the Union sided with the Foreman.

When I ran work I sh!tcanned many a Union Member who weren't worth a sh!t and I had no problems with the Union except that I would have to replace them with members of the Union who had jurisdiction of that work site. If those guys who replaced them were worthless then I would let them go too!

Yep, nothing like personal attacks to lend to your credibility... :roll:

If you dont understand why Unions are bad, I'll give you one glaring example. GM. Granted, so your so busy trying to come up with personal flames against people who'll miss the whole point in a blind flurry of key typing out personal attacks again wont you?

 

[Vic]

Unions are good and bad. I think they should be more strictly regulated in the private sector and outright banned for public employees.

 

[sygyzy]

In our US Business History class, we learned that unions were very much needed and important earlier in the century when they lacked things like basic employee rights, fair wages, etc.

Nowadays, unions have grown into a entity that is no longer required. Many of the arguments people make for pro union sound like a lot of whining to me. For instance, "if you unions didn't exist, teachers wouldn't get paid enough."

How could this last? Say the public schools cut wages for everyone and teachers get upset. Then they leave. Now everyone's kids are dumb, they enter a life of crime, steal and rob the lawmakers and school board. Quickly, they realize they need to do something to attract more teachers. What's that? More pay. The reason I said public schools is private schools can afford to pay more.

Anyway, that's just one example. I think we shouldn't confuse "rights" with "wants".

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Yep, nothing like personal attacks to lend to your credibility... :roll:

?

Yeah right, my insults were in response to insults of yours like this

I hate unions, and willing members of them. Nothing but worthless sandbaggers who are afraid to work.

Obviously your ignorance knows no limits and niether does your hypocrisy.

 

[ivol07]

Burns flashes back to simpler days. Springfield, 1909, back when people smashed atoms by hand. Grandfather Burns catches one of his employees trying to steal some atoms and has him taken away.

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!


-- The beginning of the end, ``Last Exit to Springfield''


Pretty much sums it up.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

So a boss should be able to fire you if he doesn't like you, you're a minority, you contradict him for being an idiot etc.?

Absolutely. Except race, since that is a seperate law and illegal. Your boss owes you NOTHING except payment for services rendered. He does not owe you cradle to grave security.

Folks, taking away an employer's right to fire at will limits THEIR rights to placate you.

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

Well, the law is against your opinion. There has to be a reason for termination, and it can't be for not liking you. The unions just enforce this protection.

Check your contract. Most jobs are called "right to work" - meaning you can leave for no reason and they can fire you for no reason. Surprised?

 

[Haps]

We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Haps
We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

Unions? Yes. Legislation? NO. Who are you to tell a private individual how he may buy labor? Would you be for laws telling you how you may sell your labor?

If a company does this, REFUSE TO WORK FOR THEM. If others are willing to work under those conditions, who are you to tell them it's bad?

 

[Geekbabe]

I'm a proud union member,my company bargains fairly and in return they get skilled, loyal workers.

 

[Haps]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps
We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

Unions? Yes. Legislation? NO. Who are you to tell a private individual how he may buy labor? Would you be for laws telling you how you may sell your labor?

If a company does this, REFUSE TO WORK FOR THEM. If others are willing to work under those conditions, who are you to tell them it's bad?

Well around here we have laws dictating working enviroment and safety rules. Should we abolish those?

What about laws regarding public holidays and overtime pay, child labour, minimum wage, and foreign/immigrant labour? Should we abolish those?

Should we get rid of all labour laws?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps
We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

Unions? Yes. Legislation? NO. Who are you to tell a private individual how he may buy labor? Would you be for laws telling you how you may sell your labor?

If a company does this, REFUSE TO WORK FOR THEM. If others are willing to work under those conditions, who are you to tell them it's bad?

Well around here we have laws dictating working enviroment and safety rules. Should we abolish those?

What about laws regarding public holidays and overtime pay? Should we abolish those?

Should we get rid of all labour laws?

Almost ALL benefits given by employers have been voluntary in an effort to attract quality employees (health care, vacation times, holidays, etc). None of those were mandated by law. It is safe to assume that most labor laws are pointless. Granted, minimum safety standards may be set, but beyond that the benefits you recieve from your employer should be a matter of mutual agreement, not force. If you don't like how an employer treats his employees, quit or form a union and strike.

 

[Haps]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps
We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

Unions? Yes. Legislation? NO. Who are you to tell a private individual how he may buy labor? Would you be for laws telling you how you may sell your labor?

If a company does this, REFUSE TO WORK FOR THEM. If others are willing to work under those conditions, who are you to tell them it's bad?

Well around here we have laws dictating working enviroment and safety rules. Should we abolish those?

What about laws regarding public holidays and overtime pay? Should we abolish those?

Should we get rid of all labour laws?

Almost ALL benefits given by employers have been voluntary in an effort to attract quality employees (health care, vacation times, holidays, etc). None of those were mandated by law. It is safe to assume that most labor laws are pointless. Granted, minimum safety standards may be set, but beyond that the benefits you recieve from your employer should be a matter of mutual agreement, not force. If you don't like how an employer treats his employees, quit or form a union and strike.

But according to your logic safety laws aren't need. Don't want to work in an asbestos lined chair. Too bad find another job. Your boss wants you to work on untagged electrical circuits. Screw him find somewhere else. Boss wants you to work from heights without a harness. No problem go somewhere else.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps
We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

Unions? Yes. Legislation? NO. Who are you to tell a private individual how he may buy labor? Would you be for laws telling you how you may sell your labor?

If a company does this, REFUSE TO WORK FOR THEM. If others are willing to work under those conditions, who are you to tell them it's bad?

Well around here we have laws dictating working enviroment and safety rules. Should we abolish those?

What about laws regarding public holidays and overtime pay? Should we abolish those?

Should we get rid of all labour laws?

Almost ALL benefits given by employers have been voluntary in an effort to attract quality employees (health care, vacation times, holidays, etc). None of those were mandated by law. It is safe to assume that most labor laws are pointless. Granted, minimum safety standards may be set, but beyond that the benefits you recieve from your employer should be a matter of mutual agreement, not force. If you don't like how an employer treats his employees, quit or form a union and strike.

But according to your logic safety laws aren't need. Don't want to work in an asbestos lined chair. Too bad find another job. Your boss wants you to work on untagged electrical circuits. Screw him find somewhere else. Boss wants you to work from heights without a harness. No problem go somewhere else.

How did you come to that conculsion? Safety laws, and right to work laws are entirely different.

If you want to argue the point, I'm game. If you want to keep going off topic in lame attempts to "poke holes in my logic" then find someone else to play with.

 

[Leetman]

Union = :thumbsdown:

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
most people don't think they need the union until a) they get injustly reprimanded or fired b) the company tries to unilaterally enforce an unjust policy c) the company tries to cut wages

Then they run to the union for help.

I've seen several instances where companies have ttried these tactics and been stopped by the union, and in one case, where a plant voted to go non-union and within a year the wages were cut in half. People were told if they didn't want to work for that, they were welcome to find a new job.

In my position, I supervise union employees (carpenters). The unions once had a great training program and they worked better and could do more that most non-union workers. Over the years, that tradition has lessened, but it is still a part of it. I know they do value their benefits and pay which are superior to non-union carpenters, and thats fine with me. Happy and satisfied employees work better every day of the week.

There is no such thing as an "unjust" firing. Just as you have every right to quit for any reason you like, a company should have every right to fire you for any reason they like.

not true.....

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Haps
We've got a bad union here at work for a lot of the reasons people will always mention. I used to be anti-union. However my mind is slowly changing in that we need some sort of balance. There are 3 tactics I see companies doing that a union can stop. Perhaps we need better legislation protecting workers rights instead of unions:

- Firing long term employees in a structured pay system to replace them with newer employees starting at the bottom of the pay scale. Or in some cases restructuring the business(changing business name merger etc) and firing employees and then hiring back at a starting rate.

- Casual employees. This one is starting to get nasty. I believe companies have a vested interest and respoinsibility to take care oif there employees. But you see the casual employee situation as a way to get out of paying vacation/benefits. Companies that used to have 40 full time positions now have 5 full time and 200 casual jobs.

- Contracting out. THis one hurts because companies that used to employ lots of workers at a decent wage are cutting jobs and contracting them out. The contractor is usually a smaller company that does not pay as well nor have benefits.

Companies seem to be bound and determined to maximize profits "at any cost". Unfortunately it's the american workforce and economy that is paying for it.

Unions? Yes. Legislation? NO. Who are you to tell a private individual how he may buy labor? Would you be for laws telling you how you may sell your labor?

If a company does this, REFUSE TO WORK FOR THEM. If others are willing to work under those conditions, who are you to tell them it's bad?

Well around here we have laws dictating working enviroment and safety rules. Should we abolish those?

What about laws regarding public holidays and overtime pay? Should we abolish those?

Should we get rid of all labour laws?

Almost ALL benefits given by employers have been voluntary in an effort to attract quality employees (health care, vacation times, holidays, etc). None of those were mandated by law. It is safe to assume that most labor laws are pointless. Granted, minimum safety standards may be set, but beyond that the benefits you recieve from your employer should be a matter of mutual agreement, not force. If you don't like how an employer treats his employees, quit or form a union and strike.

But according to your logic safety laws aren't need. Don't want to work in an asbestos lined chair. Too bad find another job. Your boss wants you to work on untagged electrical circuits. Screw him find somewhere else. Boss wants you to work from heights without a harness. No problem go somewhere else.

How did you come to that conculsion? Safety laws, and right to work laws are entirely different.

If you want to argue the point, I'm game. If you want to keep going off topic in lame attempts to "poke holes in my logic" then find someone else to play with.

A lot of the "minimum safety standards" came about BECAUSE of the involvement of Unions in attempting to build a safer workplace. All of those things didn't just stop in say, 1935. They continue to evolve. What may be seen as safe today (or in 1935) may be found to be unsafe 10 years from now. Technology and the workplace continues to evolve, and so must safety and workplace guidelines. Unions are part of the equation.