we need to get rid of unions so we can dump the 40 hr work week and all work 7 days, like before unions, right?
Way to go Indiana!
- Thread starter 3311
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 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.
My wife worked for 16 years in the public school system. There are a LOT of teachers who really ARE slacking off, and they can't be fired or disciplined due to union rules! And if I edited his statement then it's not a quote, is it?
I live in a right to work state, therefore I have protection from the state in the areas I want it. It should be open for democratic debate and the voters should decide. Period.
And no one has addressed my statement regarding legal 'thuggery' that unions are allowed under the guise of 'protest'. Got any smart comments on that?
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.
My wife worked for 16 years in the public school system. There are a LOT of teachers who really ARE slacking off, and they can't be fired or disciplined due to union rules! And if I edited his statement then it's not a quote, is it?
I live in a right to work state, therefore I have protection from the state in the areas I want it. It should be open for democratic debate and the voters should decide. Period.
And no one has addressed my statement regarding legal 'thuggery' that unions are allowed under the guise of 'protest'. Got any smart comments on that?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
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.
In truth the standard of living has rising dramatically across the board while unions have declined. What is termed 'middle-class' today is FAR different then when I was a child. We have it much better as a whole and I believe that labor unions had a part in that MANY years ago. Today, they hamper and discourage competition and the work ethic. While there still may be a need for some type of unions today, they ALL need to evolve and become something entirely different or they will cease to exist.
As for what Reagan did to the FAA controllers? The strike was completely illegal. They were warned...the foolish union leadership ignored the law....then they got terminated. Can't get much more simple than that. He did the right thing for the country. From what I understand none of the fired controllers ever were allowed to be a controller again, but they were allowed to apply for other positions.
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.
In truth the standard of living has rising dramatically across the board while unions have declined. What is termed 'middle-class' today is FAR different then when I was a child. We have it much better as a whole and I believe that labor unions had a part in that MANY years ago. Today, they hamper and discourage competition and the work ethic. While there still may be a need for some type of unions today, they ALL need to evolve and become something entirely different or they will cease to exist.
As for what Reagan did to the FAA controllers? The strike was completely illegal. They were warned...the foolish union leadership ignored the law....then they got terminated. Can't get much more simple than that. He did the right thing for the country. From what I understand none of the fired controllers ever were allowed to be a controller again, but they were allowed to apply for other positions.
While I agree there are many abuses by some in unions, most non union people do not realize how much they indirectly benefit from unions. Unions drive up wages for all in the area. that's why people on average make more in union states, including non union workers.
Mitch Daniels is going to ensure everone in Indiana will be making less. That is what the businesses want. less pay for workers and more for them to keep.
Mitch Daniels is going to ensure everone in Indiana will be making less. That is what the businesses want. less pay for workers and more for them to keep.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
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.
Exactly right, it seems the anti-union types argue so biased as if they are the company owners and executives. It's basically class envy against their own class. As far as outsourcing, non-union, near minimum wage no benefit jobs are and have been outsourced just the same. So unions really have nothing to do with it.
As far as right to work, that is just a way to weaken unions and nothing more and it's not right for politicians to be taking sides. If a shop's majority voted for a union(despite the companies intimidation efforts) then the majority should rule. Why should free riders get most of the benefits the union negotiates, but not have to pay any fees and play both sides against the middle and try to look good to management? It's for good reason they are called scabs. Trying to unionize any shop even one that isn't right to work is a daunting task because of employer intimidation and just illustrates how intimidated employees are by their employers and why they need collective bargaining in the first place.
Every argument made against unions about lobbying, enrichening themselves, poor performing and putting limits against over productivity could be made more strongly against the executives. They lobby, enrichen, manage poorly and force over productivity themselves. It just comes down to classism. Some people are against the working class even though they are in it and always will be. I think the fair minded, balanced person would see things are too canted in favor of the executive class as it almost always been throughout history and collective bargaining provideds some needed counterbalance.
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.
Exactly right, it seems the anti-union types argue so biased as if they are the company owners and executives. It's basically class envy against their own class. As far as outsourcing, non-union, near minimum wage no benefit jobs are and have been outsourced just the same. So unions really have nothing to do with it.
As far as right to work, that is just a way to weaken unions and nothing more and it's not right for politicians to be taking sides. If a shop's majority voted for a union(despite the companies intimidation efforts) then the majority should rule. Why should free riders get most of the benefits the union negotiates, but not have to pay any fees and play both sides against the middle and try to look good to management? It's for good reason they are called scabs. Trying to unionize any shop even one that isn't right to work is a daunting task because of employer intimidation and just illustrates how intimidated employees are by their employers and why they need collective bargaining in the first place.
Every argument made against unions about lobbying, enrichening themselves, poor performing and putting limits against over productivity could be made more strongly against the executives. They lobby, enrichen, manage poorly and force over productivity themselves. It just comes down to classism. Some people are against the working class even though they are in it and always will be. I think the fair minded, balanced person would see things are too canted in favor of the executive class as it almost always been throughout history and collective bargaining provideds some needed counterbalance.
Originally Posted By: PSS
While I agree there are many abuses by some in unions, most non union people do not realize how much they indirectly benefit from unions. Unions drive up wages for all in the area. that's why people on average make more in union states, including non union workers.
Mitch Daniels is going to ensure everone in Indiana will be making less. That is what the businesses want. less pay for workers and more for them to keep.
I'm a union member, but I don't agree with you 100%. I'm still contemplating the how's and if's of withdrawing from the union and how it will impact me in the workplace including trying to not be required to have union dues taken out (even if withdrawn they require it). As I've stated there was a time when unions were needed. They've not been any less greedy or corrupt than the employers however, and these days it's no different. Rhetoric and propaganda are the tools of choice in my union. Unfortunately the company I work for can sometimes be guilty of the same...but usually not as crudely as the union. Nonetheless, unions must modernize and adapt or they will cease to exist as depleting numbers have shown. Using strikes (extortion) and the almighty power of the 'collective' (socialism) is not really as effective as it once was. On the other hand, the huge amounts of outsourcing that companies partake these days is nearly criminal and un-American in my mind. So what's the fix? Who knows. Perhaps there is no solution and globalism is just how it's going to be.
While I agree there are many abuses by some in unions, most non union people do not realize how much they indirectly benefit from unions. Unions drive up wages for all in the area. that's why people on average make more in union states, including non union workers.
Mitch Daniels is going to ensure everone in Indiana will be making less. That is what the businesses want. less pay for workers and more for them to keep.
I'm a union member, but I don't agree with you 100%. I'm still contemplating the how's and if's of withdrawing from the union and how it will impact me in the workplace including trying to not be required to have union dues taken out (even if withdrawn they require it). As I've stated there was a time when unions were needed. They've not been any less greedy or corrupt than the employers however, and these days it's no different. Rhetoric and propaganda are the tools of choice in my union. Unfortunately the company I work for can sometimes be guilty of the same...but usually not as crudely as the union. Nonetheless, unions must modernize and adapt or they will cease to exist as depleting numbers have shown. Using strikes (extortion) and the almighty power of the 'collective' (socialism) is not really as effective as it once was. On the other hand, the huge amounts of outsourcing that companies partake these days is nearly criminal and un-American in my mind. So what's the fix? Who knows. Perhaps there is no solution and globalism is just how it's going to be.
Originally Posted By: 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.
The "threat" of unionization does nothing but create a adversarial between ownership/management and the employees. It's pure folly and pro union propaganda to think otherwise.
The free market and the idea that you may lose a great employee to a competitor is what drives wages.
P.S. With respect to my English, I did go to public schools. Thanks for helping to make my point about unions being the refuge for the incompetent.
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.
The "threat" of unionization does nothing but create a adversarial between ownership/management and the employees. It's pure folly and pro union propaganda to think otherwise.
The free market and the idea that you may lose a great employee to a competitor is what drives wages.
P.S. With respect to my English, I did go to public schools. Thanks for helping to make my point about unions being the refuge for the incompetent.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
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.
Exactly right, it seems the anti-union types argue so biased as if they are the company owners and executives. It's basically class envy against their own class. As far as outsourcing, non-union, near minimum wage no benefit jobs are and have been outsourced just the same. So unions really have nothing to do with it.
As far as right to work, that is just a way to weaken unions and nothing more and it's not right for politicians to be taking sides. If a shop's majority voted for a union(despite the companies intimidation efforts) then the majority should rule. Why should free riders get most of the benefits the union negotiates, but not have to pay any fees and play both sides against the middle and try to look good to management? It's for good reason they are called scabs. Trying to unionize any shop even one that isn't right to work is a daunting task because of employer intimidation and just illustrates how intimidated employees are by their employers and why they need collective bargaining in the first place.
Every argument made against unions about lobbying, enrichening themselves, poor performing and putting limits against over productivity could be made more strongly against the executives. They lobby, enrichen, manage poorly and force over productivity themselves. It just comes down to classism. Some people are against the working class even though they are in it and always will be. I think the fair minded, balanced person would see things are too canted in favor of the executive class as it almost always been throughout history and collective bargaining provideds some needed counterbalance.
I HAVE A SOLUTION! It just came to me. It's so simple. I'm mad at myself for thinking of it sooner. It will solve this whole union issue we seem to disagree so strongly about.
Unions should start there own companies!!!
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
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.
Exactly right, it seems the anti-union types argue so biased as if they are the company owners and executives. It's basically class envy against their own class. As far as outsourcing, non-union, near minimum wage no benefit jobs are and have been outsourced just the same. So unions really have nothing to do with it.
As far as right to work, that is just a way to weaken unions and nothing more and it's not right for politicians to be taking sides. If a shop's majority voted for a union(despite the companies intimidation efforts) then the majority should rule. Why should free riders get most of the benefits the union negotiates, but not have to pay any fees and play both sides against the middle and try to look good to management? It's for good reason they are called scabs. Trying to unionize any shop even one that isn't right to work is a daunting task because of employer intimidation and just illustrates how intimidated employees are by their employers and why they need collective bargaining in the first place.
Every argument made against unions about lobbying, enrichening themselves, poor performing and putting limits against over productivity could be made more strongly against the executives. They lobby, enrichen, manage poorly and force over productivity themselves. It just comes down to classism. Some people are against the working class even though they are in it and always will be. I think the fair minded, balanced person would see things are too canted in favor of the executive class as it almost always been throughout history and collective bargaining provideds some needed counterbalance.
I HAVE A SOLUTION! It just came to me. It's so simple. I'm mad at myself for thinking of it sooner. It will solve this whole union issue we seem to disagree so strongly about.
Unions should start there own companies!!!
with the zillions they have collected off of their poor underpaid members that should be easy!
There are a lot of employers who would just as soon as leave a person for dead if it made them an extra dollar. I'm glad to have unions around since they help keep the more unscrupulous employers in check. We've all benefited directly or indirectly from unions standing up to the bad employers to make working conditions better. They help keep the honest companies honest, and help improve the bad apples in the industry.
There are bad unions, just like there are bad employers. Pick your poison. I'd rather err on the side of better working conditions.
The problem with everybody is that they get too focused on their narrow interests, and think their stand of trees is the forest. Management and unions are both guilty of that mindset. The management gets too focused on the bottom line to the detriment of the workers, while the union gets too focused on their wage/benefits to the detriment of the company.
Also, the last time Indiana had "right to work" in the 1950's it got repealed 8 years later.
There are bad unions, just like there are bad employers. Pick your poison. I'd rather err on the side of better working conditions.
The problem with everybody is that they get too focused on their narrow interests, and think their stand of trees is the forest. Management and unions are both guilty of that mindset. The management gets too focused on the bottom line to the detriment of the workers, while the union gets too focused on their wage/benefits to the detriment of the company.
Also, the last time Indiana had "right to work" in the 1950's it got repealed 8 years later.
- Status
