Way to go Indiana!
- Thread starter 3311
- Start date
- Status
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
Voluntary not required to. Sounds like the right way to have it. Good for Indiana maybe they can attract more jobs now.
And people assume you will always have better wages and benefits in a union. Not always true,You cant just simply make a company pay more than they can afford, and I am a 30 year union member.
Sad day in Indiana for the working class IMO
Sad day in Indiana for the working class IMO
JHZR2
Staff member
Opens up all kinds of cans of worms, IMO. Not necessarily a good or right step. Im no Union apologist, but Im also not for squeezing those doing real work too hard in the name of profits or threats to outsource to China.
People should also be able to collectively bargain to ensure that their best interest is considered, not just the shareholder or the owner who supposedly took all the risk.
At the same time, squeezing beyond a budget, real COL increases, and not considering the whole man-year cost in the interest of pay raises and benefits for (sometimes) relatively unskilled labor is impractical and troublesome too.
My biggest issue is when either you are forced to pay some level of dues (as my wife is at one of her jobs, and this is a professional situation), and when the union CEO makes a ton of money, and when the Union sits upon a ton of money and effectively profits from dues. Worse when the desires conflich with my determined right way ahead is. Im paying why?
People should also be able to collectively bargain to ensure that their best interest is considered, not just the shareholder or the owner who supposedly took all the risk.
At the same time, squeezing beyond a budget, real COL increases, and not considering the whole man-year cost in the interest of pay raises and benefits for (sometimes) relatively unskilled labor is impractical and troublesome too.
My biggest issue is when either you are forced to pay some level of dues (as my wife is at one of her jobs, and this is a professional situation), and when the union CEO makes a ton of money, and when the Union sits upon a ton of money and effectively profits from dues. Worse when the desires conflich with my determined right way ahead is. Im paying why?
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
Exactly. A lot of people don't care how little they have as long as someone else does not get more. That's how the anti-union, anti-labor big dogs and politicians have an easy time getting everyone to cooperate against their own interests. They certianly do not have any working person's interest in mind. For them low cost, powerless labor is all it is really about.
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
Exactly. A lot of people don't care how little they have as long as someone else does not get more. That's how the anti-union, anti-labor big dogs and politicians have an easy time getting everyone to cooperate against their own interests. They certianly do not have any working person's interest in mind. For them low cost, powerless labor is all it is really about.
Good. This will only help Indiana un-rust itself from the rust belt states.
Good for Indiana. I hope it starts a trend.
Nope, I do not like unions, because my wife was forced to pay union dues to the NEA in order to be a teacher. NEA supports causes contrary to our beliefs. $125 in NEA dues a month on a $900 (after taxes) salary. $775 take home pay after dealing with special ed kids all day.
It was organized racket, as far as I am concerned. We are thankful that she is able to stay home now and we live just on my income.
What is wrong with the law that gives you CHOICE on whether or not belong to union? If it is a competent, honest local, people will join. If it is not, why would you want to keep people against their will, unless union's pocket book is more important than individual's liberty.
It was organized racket, as far as I am concerned. We are thankful that she is able to stay home now and we live just on my income.
What is wrong with the law that gives you CHOICE on whether or not belong to union? If it is a competent, honest local, people will join. If it is not, why would you want to keep people against their will, unless union's pocket book is more important than individual's liberty.
Let unions stand on there own. They are longer needed. Without the thuggery and corruption of forced unionization and governmnet bailouts they would cease to exist. The country as a whole would benifit form increased cometiveness in the world market place.
Now If we can just get the unions out of govenrment and off the taxpayer teet we may get somwhere.
Now If we can just get the unions out of govenrment and off the taxpayer teet we may get somwhere.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
Everybody I work with looks back with fond nostalgia at the good old days when they had better benefits, a superior health plan and a fair and flexible way to deal with the seasonal slow periods inherent to our business. Then the union came in and changed everything to the "union way".
Thank God I work in the office and don't have to be a member.
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
Everybody I work with looks back with fond nostalgia at the good old days when they had better benefits, a superior health plan and a fair and flexible way to deal with the seasonal slow periods inherent to our business. Then the union came in and changed everything to the "union way".
Thank God I work in the office and don't have to be a member.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Yep - sad day for Indiana.
Unions gave birth to the "vast" middle class. Non-union wages then used union wages to balance their wages.
Without unions, say goodbye to the vast arena of middle class. Actually we've been headed to the rich & poor-only class for 8-10 years now. It all started when Reagan busted the Airline Traffic Controllers Union in the early 1980s. Then 8-10 years ago, lawmakers got their nose into it -- just like what we're seeing with Indiana.
Unions gave birth to the "vast" middle class. Non-union wages then used union wages to balance their wages.
Without unions, say goodbye to the vast arena of middle class. Actually we've been headed to the rich & poor-only class for 8-10 years now. It all started when Reagan busted the Airline Traffic Controllers Union in the early 1980s. Then 8-10 years ago, lawmakers got their nose into it -- just like what we're seeing with Indiana.
Odd, I hear that from union folks all the time. Why don't we get the benefits that management (non-union) gets.
There are always some who think the grass is greener on the other side.
For me, I'd rather negotiate my own salary. I'd rather decide on my own if the pay and benefits are enough, and not have to go on strike because my brothers and sisters see it different than I do.
I'd rather drive what I want to drive, and not have my "brothers and sisters" key my car because it was made in Japan, or Korea, or Germany, or Italy, etc. (But their Hecho in Mexico Ram Truck is "American?")
I certainly don't want another group deciding which political candidates to back with my dues. I don't want them giving to either of the major parties.
So for me personally, union representation would be a step backwards, not forwards.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
There are always some who think the grass is greener on the other side.
For me, I'd rather negotiate my own salary. I'd rather decide on my own if the pay and benefits are enough, and not have to go on strike because my brothers and sisters see it different than I do.
I'd rather drive what I want to drive, and not have my "brothers and sisters" key my car because it was made in Japan, or Korea, or Germany, or Italy, etc. (But their Hecho in Mexico Ram Truck is "American?")
I certainly don't want another group deciding which political candidates to back with my dues. I don't want them giving to either of the major parties.
So for me personally, union representation would be a step backwards, not forwards.
Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
It always amazes me when non-union workers compare their lot to union workers and ask, "Why should they get those benefits when I don't?"
A better question would be, "Why don't I get the benefits they do?"
Originally Posted By: javacontour
For me, I'd rather negotiate my own salary. I'd rather decide on my own if the pay and benefits are enough, and not have to go on strike because my brothers and sisters see it different than I do.
I certainly don't want another group deciding which political candidates to back with my dues. I don't want them giving to either of the major parties.
So for me personally, union representation would be a step backwards, not forwards.
Excellent post!
For me, I'd rather negotiate my own salary. I'd rather decide on my own if the pay and benefits are enough, and not have to go on strike because my brothers and sisters see it different than I do.
I certainly don't want another group deciding which political candidates to back with my dues. I don't want them giving to either of the major parties.
So for me personally, union representation would be a step backwards, not forwards.
Excellent post!
29 coal miners died due to poor working conditions that wouldnt happen in a union mine. I worked for General Dynamics building ships, and I was darned glad for the union and its stance on safety. I am in the IBEW now and they are ok. Every year, there are less accidents in the industry. There is a 4 yr apprenticeship program that is accredited. Pensions and all sorts of good stuff. I'm not making big money, but I'm working in a good place. I was odd jobbing for 3 yrs after being laid off from the phone company. Temping is oppressive, until I landed this job five yrs ago.
Labor unions are an outdated concept similar to the unfriendly people on the other side of the Berlin Wall. At one time they were helpful but in today's world they are no longer needed. Labor Unions talk about solidarity and brotherhood.... so does the KKK.
Right to work for less, is what that really means. Less pay, less benefits. Watch the poverty rate go up, and more people go without health care. Good job Indiana.
Originally Posted By: Jim74
Right to work for less, is what that really means. Less pay, less benefits. Watch the poverty rate go up, and more people go without health care. Good job Indiana.
That's exactly all it means plus poorer working conditions. Nothing beneficial to the middle class at all will come of it. But I guess if you're not for that you're a "thug" or similar to klansman
. I think it's the other way around and the real thugs are the ones pushing the legislation.
Right to work for less, is what that really means. Less pay, less benefits. Watch the poverty rate go up, and more people go without health care. Good job Indiana.
That's exactly all it means plus poorer working conditions. Nothing beneficial to the middle class at all will come of it. But I guess if you're not for that you're a "thug" or similar to klansman
Reagan had every right to fire those bums.
Everything will be just sunshine and roses if you belong to a union ?
Keep paying your dues, the local union reps need a bigger boat and vacation home.
Everything will be just sunshine and roses if you belong to a union ?
Keep paying your dues, the local union reps need a bigger boat and vacation home.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Odd, I hear that from union folks all the time. Why don't we get the benefits that management (non-union) gets.
Yes. Look at Gary, IN -- the union members got the same as the executive leadership: a ghost town.
Odd, I hear that from union folks all the time. Why don't we get the benefits that management (non-union) gets.
Yes. Look at Gary, IN -- the union members got the same as the executive leadership: a ghost town.
- Status
