Way to go Indiana!

[3311]

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.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
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.

What are you guys afraid of? If they are such a success and do what you say then workers will to join them. If they are not worth while they continue to go they way of the Dodo.

Unions were a good idea and needed in the past. Today corrupt, unproductive, self serving parasitical organizations that would make Marx proud.

 

[Mr Nice]

^^^
Yep, don't forget that ghostown called Youngstown, Ohio that now has to rely on toxic fracking sludge disposal industry pumping poison into the ground causing earthquakes cause the unions drove out all businesses out of town. How sad and pathetic if you have to rely on toxic sludge disposal to replace all those out of work union members.

 

[hooligan24]

Sometimes people dont get a choice to be part of union or not. My last 2 jobs required me to be part of a Union. The one thing that bugs me, is when other people generalise ALL Union members to have the same working habits since we are union. Its not true at all. I dont like paying dues, but if it means getting a $1000 a month health plan, $5.50 for every hour I work going into my retirement plan, and be able to live comfortably, I will take it.

Im not the one that made the companies sign the agreement, they had their right to not sign or hire a unionized work force

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

Originally Posted By: hooligan24
Im not the one that made the companies sign the agreement, they had their right to not sign or hire a unionized work force

Not really. If workers vote to have a union, business can't fire them, so they are stuck with union workforce. It is easier to fold the shop completely and go out of country. Even moving to another state is no longer an option. Look at what NLRB tried to do Boeing in South Carolina.

If union is such a great thing, what are you afraid of, if people have a choice?

I think this question has been asked several times in this thread, but still no answer from union members.

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris
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.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris

If union is such a great thing, what are you afraid of, if people have a choice?

I think this question has been asked several times in this thread, but still no answer from union members.


I'm betting all were gonna get is crickets.

 

[msmoke00]

It's a good day to be a capitalist here in Indiana. I doubt it will stop the mafia the union has become from putting up their inflatable rats everywhere, but it's a step in the right direction. We've got a balanced state budget and jobs coming into the state instead of leaving, how many states can say that right now?

 

[04SE]

I am forced to pay $480 a year to AFSCME for the "privilege" of them fighting for my "rights." As an employee of the great broke state of Illinois, I despise AFSCME. Just recently, when a union steward was spewing filth about how we "had a right" to a job, I asked where specifically in the constitution did Jefferson put that we had a right to a job, pension, health care, etc. He had a VERY difficult time finding the humor in it. He just continued to spew garbage about fighting for my "rights." I just laughed in his face.

The ONLY thing AFSCME has done in our building is fill management spots with cronies that have ABSOLUTELY no clue how to do the job. They cave on any grievance filed because the management is all AFSCME cronies and political hacks. All they do is cut back door deals to promote AFSCME stewards into management. Does anybody else see the conflict of interest??????

 

[SteveSRT8]

Thank god there's still a bit of democracy left in this country.

Unions are too corrupt, money ruins everything when it is running like water.

Forcing people to pay so that the union bosses can fund their own agenda and then allowing them to behave like thugs is good?

 

[hooligan24]

Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris
Originally Posted By: hooligan24
Im not the one that made the companies sign the agreement, they had their right to not sign or hire a unionized work force

Not really. If workers vote to have a union, business can't fire them, so they are stuck with union workforce. It is easier to fold the shop completely and go out of country. Even moving to another state is no longer an option. Look at what NLRB tried to do Boeing in South Carolina.

If union is such a great thing, what are you afraid of, if people have a choice?

I think this question has been asked several times in this thread, but still no answer from union members.


The last 2 fire sprinkler companies I worked for were new within the last 4 years. They both opened their doors with a signed agreement. As for the other ones I have helped in the past, I dont know. WHat do you mean by what are we afraid of? I dont understand what you are wanting to hear

 

[Al]

Nothing has changed in many Unions since the Molly Maguires. Well, they have become more corrupt, more sophisticated, and have developed this symbiotic relationship with government.

 

[rshaw125]

Welcome to the global economy Indiana. Like it or not the rules have changed.

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

Originally Posted By: hooligan24
The last 2 fire sprinkler companies I worked for were new within the last 4 years. They both opened their doors with a signed agreement. As for the other ones I have helped in the past, I dont know. WHat do you mean by what are we afraid of? I dont understand what you are wanting to hear


If I understand the law, companies will be allowed to hire non-union people to work alongside the existing union workforce.

Why would you be against it? If you can woo that new person to join your local, you get a new union member. If your local supports lazy employees, dues are exceptionally high (like they were in case of my wife and NEA), then the new employee will not join you and he/she will have to negotiate his/her wages directly with the management.

Now, when the time comes to renew your existing union contract, if the employer has more non-union people, union will not have as much bargaining power as it did in the past.
And that's the crux of the matter.

It means your local will have to rethink how it treats its members and make union more attractive to the new people. Instead of being forced to join, you will have to compete for the new people.

So the real cause for the panic among the union bosses, the way I see it, is the fact that they realize that union membership is not attractive enough to keep the union alive, if membership is made voluntary. They would have to cut dues, and/or plow more money back to the local chapters; both of these options cut into their pocketbook.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
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.


I do not approve of nor like the sprawling infrastructure, "turf" setups, etc. that come out of many of the union aspects. That all is a bit much for me.

I also do not like for the union "bosses" to make any more money than any of the workers. For there to be a $1m/yr union guy is a slap in the face to all the dues paying workers, in my view.

But what amazes me is that so many are willing to fight for and argue for the "executives" to be able to make a ton more money than the laborer trying to make pay off the sweat of their own brow. Very few on here, regardless of what management or similar title, are truly wealthy and have a substantial net worth. If someone on here is a multi-billionare CEO of a major company, excuse me, I was wrong.

But frankly, emergency funds and paid off house and 401k or not, most everyone if not everyone on here, myself included, is not that far off from loosing everything. A lost job, down stock market and cancer or quadruple bypass with no health insurance and you can go from having tons of money and beign really comfortable to being at the median for the country, which isnt that high.

Again, for all the multimillionaire/billionaire executives on here, I apologize. But for the rest of the people, I find it a bit funny how often such an argument is made for protecting the executives pay and justifying why they should earn 1000x what the wage earner is.

There is a happy medium, and I dont see any real evidence that the unionized lineman working for Verizon is getting anywhere near the compensation package of the CEO, to make labor a real, valid threat in MANY circumstances. Labor costs are quite often the greatest cost f doing business, what else is new? And if you need a lot of people, that cost goes up.

Its merely an excuse to offshore elsewhere to induce "efficiency", because China gets $1/day as opposed to $25/hr (which is roughly $50k/year takehome, not a lot).

Im all for firing sluggish people, allowing open competition, etc. But a lot of the arguments are quite silly IMO.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Okay guys I've had to remove a few political posts. If one more shows up I'm going to have to lock this thread.

Be respectful of each other and the rules of the board PLEASE!

Thanks, Bill

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Labor Unions talk about solidarity and brotherhood.... so does the KKK.

A lot of fraternities and social groups talk about brotherhood too, and I never would have considered comparing them to the KKK.

 

[javacontour]

And this is the crux of the argument. It's not like you can just throw the union out. It's that the worker has the choice to join or not join.

That provides the needed balance. Unions started because workers perceived a benefit of banding together and negotiating for better pay, benefits and working conditions.

Today, the benefits of union membership are not as readily contrasted because so many who are not union get the same or better benefits.

Add to that the corruption, waste, fraud and abuse associated with the unions and you will have folks who legitimately question the benefit of union membership.

Right to work causes unions to become more competitive in the labor market place. They cannot simply rely on folks being forced to join of they want to work in particular shop.

If the union has more perceived advantages than disadvantages, the workers will join. If not, they wont.

Where my mother worked in TX, her shop converted from non-union to union and she ended up one of the shop stewards.

So it's not impossible for non-union places to unionize. It still happens today.

In her case, it became evident that management was not going to address real problems, so they organized and took action.

Other places may do the opposite if they have the chance to ditch their union.

The only way folks will ditch the union is if they don't perceive they are getting a good value for the dues they pay.

I do believe the worker should have the right to make that determination without being forced to join just because they work somewhere.

Originally Posted By: Ursae_Majoris
Originally Posted By: hooligan24
The last 2 fire sprinkler companies I worked for were new within the last 4 years. They both opened their doors with a signed agreement. As for the other ones I have helped in the past, I dont know. WHat do you mean by what are we afraid of? I dont understand what you are wanting to hear


If I understand the law, companies will be allowed to hire non-union people to work alongside the existing union workforce.

Why would you be against it? If you can woo that new person to join your local, you get a new union member. If your local supports lazy employees, dues are exceptionally high (like they were in case of my wife and NEA), then the new employee will not join you and he/she will have to negotiate his/her wages directly with the management.

Now, when the time comes to renew your existing union contract, if the employer has more non-union people, union will not have as much bargaining power as it did in the past.
And that's the crux of the matter.

It means your local will have to rethink how it treats its members and make union more attractive to the new people. Instead of being forced to join, you will have to compete for the new people.

So the real cause for the panic among the union bosses, the way I see it, is the fact that they realize that union membership is not attractive enough to keep the union alive, if membership is made voluntary. They would have to cut dues, and/or plow more money back to the local chapters; both of these options cut into their pocketbook.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
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.


I do not approve of nor like the sprawling infrastructure, "turf" setups, etc. that come out of many of the union aspects. That all is a bit much for me.

I also do not like for the union "bosses" to make any more money than any of the workers. For there to be a $1m/yr union guy is a slap in the face to all the dues paying workers, in my view.

But what amazes me is that so many are willing to fight for and argue for the "executives" to be able to make a ton more money than the laborer trying to make pay off the sweat of their own brow. Very few on here, regardless of what management or similar title, are truly wealthy and have a substantial net worth. If someone on here is a multi-billionare CEO of a major company, excuse me, I was wrong.

But frankly, emergency funds and paid off house and 401k or not, most everyone if not everyone on here, myself included, is not that far off from loosing everything. A lost job, down stock market and cancer or quadruple bypass with no health insurance and you can go from having tons of money and beign really comfortable to being at the median for the country, which isnt that high.

Again, for all the multimillionaire/billionaire executives on here, I apologize. But for the rest of the people, I find it a bit funny how often such an argument is made for protecting the executives pay and justifying why they should earn 1000x what the wage earner is.

There is a happy medium, and I dont see any real evidence that the unionized lineman working for Verizon is getting anywhere near the compensation package of the CEO, to make labor a real, valid threat in MANY circumstances. Labor costs are quite often the greatest cost f doing business, what else is new? And if you need a lot of people, that cost goes up.

Its merely an excuse to offshore elsewhere to induce "efficiency", because China gets $1/day as opposed to $25/hr (which is roughly $50k/year takehome, not a lot).

Im all for firing sluggish people, allowing open competition, etc. But a lot of the arguments are quite silly IMO.


Don't forget that rich guy has the weight of the world on his shoulders running the company that makes it possible for the workers to make 50k a year, probably more like 100k a year when benefits, taxes etc. are factored in. He makes possible for that worker to be a 9-5er. He makes it possible for that guy only making 50k a year to go home on Friday and not think about work until Monday morning. He was probably actually working in some way shape or form when the employees were at a union meeting talking about how evil he is.
And like or not his/her ultimate responsibility after providing a safe place to work is to the share holder or owner of the company.
With respect to the cutting it close argument, no offense, but welcome to the real world. I'm a small business owner and certainly know what it is walk the financial tight rope. We used to make some money, had some savings, had health insurance, had some nice things, and could actually take a 3 day vacation once or twice a year. Now with the state of the economy I'm one or two more bad months away from losing everything. That's ok though if I do, I now what it took to make it and I'll make again.

What is really frustrating to me and what I understand because of my situation that so many don't is, ultimately your owed and entitled nothing.

No offense to anyone.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Great quote!^^^


"ultimately your owed and entitled nothing."

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Great quote!^^^


But bad English... Must be all of those unionized English teachers slacking off.

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
"ultimately your owed and entitled nothing."


All the more reason to bargain collectively, no? To negotiaite benefits and wages rather than presuming anyone is owed anything?

Even just the threat of organized labour is what keeps employers, by the way, providing benefits and wages to non-union workers high (enough to *discourage* workers from organizing). Keep that in mind the next time you're comparing union and non-union working and wage conditions. It's part of a balance.