# Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

*Labor Union Myths
By Bob Hubbard*

Ask anyone.  Without the Union, American's would labor long hours, make barely subsistence wages, and be at the perpetual mercy of their employers. We -need- unions to combine our strength against these tyrants, to protect our rights, earn living wages and have the free time to enjoy the fruits of our labors.

At least, that's the myth.

But what is the truth?

Lets take a trip together.

The Date: July 6th, 1896.
The Place: Homestead, Pennsylvania.
The Event: Carnegie Steel Company Labor Strike.

On this day, striking workers who were members of the between the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers and the Carnegie Steel Company waged battle, leaving 10 men dead, and countless injured, requiring the intervention of the state militia to settle. A monument in the town bears the following inscription:

_"ERECTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE LOCAL UNIONS IN MEMORY OF THE IRON AND STEEL WORKERS WHO WERE KILLED IN HOMESTEAD, PA., ON JULY 6, 1892, WHILE STRIKING AGAINST THE CARNEGIE STEEL COMPANY IN DEFENSE OF THEIR AMERICAN RIGHTS"_
​
The irony here is that the strikers were themselves violating the rights of others.

As the strike built momentum, strike leaders effectively took control of the town.  Peoples movement was restricted, non-union workers were assaulted, and run out of town, the press was censored, and  private property was seized and destroyed.  So much for protecting American Rights.

In the early days of the 20th Century, the courts ruled against the Unions, restricting them, like anyone else from interfering with peoples right to shop where they wanted to, trespassing on an employers private property, and interfering with the operation of the business.  This had been spelled out a century earlier in the case of People vs Fisher (1835) that ruled that people could work where they wanted to and a business could set it's prices as it wished.

This started changing in 1932 when President Hoover signed the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This stopped the requirement that an employee cease union activity aas an employment condition, and exempted labor unions from prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act. This resulted in stripping employers of protection from strikers violence.

President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" in 1935 added the "Wagner Act" to the mix.  Prior to this, a worker who didn't wish to join the Union or pay dues was free to do so. Thanks to the Wagner Act, this freedom was removed from the American Worker. This resulted in a policy of "exclusive representation", denying workers the ability to represent themselves. President Roosevelt himself opposed such a dangerous system the year prior while working to avoid a United Auto Workers strike, settling it with a more fair system of proportional representation where the UAW would represent it's members and non-union employees could make their own arrangements. He stated that this was the only way to be compatible with the American commitment to Liberty.  Unfortunately, this commitment wouldn't last. Today the United States and Canada allow this unfair system, while other countries work on the principle that individuals should be able to conduct their own private affairs and act in their own best interests. Relying on a third party that one didn't choose is a violation of their right of freedom to contract. Once a Union is designated by workers, it is almost impossible to remove at a later date. 

The Wagner Act forced employers to negotiate in "Good Faith" with the unions. On the surface, this sounds good. However what "Good Faith" is and if it was done is up to the National Labor Relations Board. They would be the sole determinant.  An added condition of the Wagner Act prevents an employer from using their right of free speech to "influence" employees decisions to unionize and allow non-employees (Union Reps) access to their private property for the purpose of persuading employees to unionize. 

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 attempted to return some amount of freedom to employers, but since anything an employer might say could be seen as interfering, this didn't work in practice. Consider the case of NLRB v Gissel Packing Co, Inc in 1969. When the employer reminded the employees that past union actions had resulted in previous plant closings, the employees voted against unionizing. The US Supreme Court overruled the employees and imposed the union on the company anyway.

Further, the Wagner Act allows strikers to use picket lines to prevent the employer from operating, by preventing temp workers from access as well as stopping deliveries and customers while protecting them from penalty. Employers can be forced to rehire violent strikers as a result.

Of course, American's today are more than happy to throw away freedoms especially when told they are in their own "best interest". They believe that if we didn't have Unions, that wages would never rise, and that employers would walk all over them. The evidence however shows a different picture. If labor is truly exploited and paid under value, we can expect that non union employers in labor intensive industries would pay bare minimum. But no evidence exists to prove this. In WNY there are two main supermarket chains, Wegmans who is non-union, and another which is a union shop. Wegmans has been constantly voted one of the best places in the country to work over the last decade, has an excellent benefits package, great loyalty from it's employees and pays well above the minimum wage. The union shop and is regularly at the opposite end of the list, and pays as close to minimum as it can. In fact, it is often more profitable for a worker to work at the non-unionized fast food chains than the non-union supermarket chain. 

Workers in the 19th century were often forced to accept substandard employment, this is true. Today however, the average worker has a potential employment range and increased mobility allowing them a much greater opportunity and strength than their 19th century counterpart. A worker with alternatives, has the power today, a fact made well by Charles Baird.

The University of California's Charles Baird explains:

 _   This idea, that workers without unions will inherently have a disadvantage in bargaining power relative to employers, is the basis for most individuals' support of unionism and is picked up again in the Wagner Act. But that disadvantage is a hoary myth. A worker's bargaining power depends on the worker's alternatives. If a worker either works for Employer A or does not work (i.e., if Employer A is a monopsonist), the worker has little bargaining power. If the worker has several employment alternatives, he has strong bargaining power. There may have been instances of monopsony or oligopsony in the 19th century, butthey were short-lived. Monopsony has not been a significant factor in the American labor market since the introduction and widespread use of the automobile._
​
The myth that without labor unions have helped the American Worker is false. The reality is that the changes in American Labor Law since the 1930's have eroded the rights of workers and employers both. Today Unions stand in the way of business, risking the very existences of those they claim to represent and want to defend.  Perhaps we wouldn't be standing at the demise of America's three largest automakers, if workers were free to represent themselves and save their companies.


*Resources:*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
http://www.battleofhomesteadfoundation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norris-LaGuardia_Act
*33 Questions about American History *-Thomas E. Woods Jr.
*Politically Incorrect guide to American history *- Thomas E. Woods Jr

 
====

Bob Hubbard is the CEO of SilverStar WebDesigns Inc, a web design and hosting company specializing in martial arts sites, as well as an administrator on the popular martial arts communities MartialTalk.com, Kenpotalk.com and FMATalk.com. He is also a respected professional photographer specializing in martial arts event, nature and portrait photography. His martial arts photography can be found there as well as at his martial arts photography web site, martialphotos.com. He may be reached through these sites.
Copyright © 2008 - Bob Hubbard - All Rights Reserved
_Permission is granted to reprint this article on websites, blogs and ezines provided all text, links and authors bio is left intact._


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

My union experience falls into working the supermarkets as a teen, and a much later run in the tech industry.  As a teen I worked for 2 Union supermarkets.  I had the "privilege" of a "great" job, "great benefits", and all it cost me was $15 a week in Union dues.  For this meager $15, I got a guaranteed minimum of 14 hours work a week, and the promise that if I were to hit 38 -scheduled- hours, I'd be eligible for benefits.  My hourly rate was a heart stopping $3.35/hr.  I got a raise, when NY raised it's minimum wage.  Interestingly enough, that put me on par with people who had been there several years who had seen the generous 5-10 cent increases handed out, as much as that pained the company.

The non-union supermarket chain was hiring at $5/hr at that time, but unfortunately were too far away for me to bike to (my main means of transportation in those days.).

Today, the Union shop hires are $7.15/hr, while the Non-Union is reportedly starting at $10/hr.  Aldi, another non-union chain hires reportedly $11-15/hr.

I spent some time consulting with temp shops back in the late 90's.  I was bringing home $3-5/hr more than my unionized compatriots at one shop. My last corporate run before going independent, I was making $10+/hr non-union over the union workers who had been there for 10+ years. (Office was non-union, plant union). They got 50 cents, I got 2 bucks in a raise one year.


It will be hard to prove to me that Unions today are anything but an obsolete relic of our past, and an anchor on reaching for our future.


----------



## Korppi76 (Dec 19, 2008)

Interesting, It seems that labor unions works differently in different countries.

Here we have collective labor agreement which is negotiated by  Labor unions and employers' organization. Agreements are for few years and they they have new negotiations where they decide general rises for certain industrys. For example unions managed to get over 10% rise for nurses at spring.

Union due depends your salary, I pay about 5 per week. 

Of course there are unions that seems to exist only to be on strike. One of our transportation union seems to go strike when ever possible. They have leader who seems to like to be on strike so his unions supports almost anybody or anything with strike.

And many will think we are very socialists as we used to have three ways negotiations where one participant was government so they managed to control rises persons got.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2008)

Unions in America seem to have taken on a very different life form from here!
How ours started.
http://www.thedorsetpage.com/history/tolpuddle_martyrs/tolpuddle_martyrs.htm

There's much thought about unions here, for and against but the unions here aren't as Bob describes them, ours are more as Korppi describes. 
We had the miners strike a while back that was fairly violent, the miners claimed the government was out to close all the pits, the government said no they were just trying to curb 'the power of the unions', well guess who was right and we don't have coal mines any more? This strike was exceptional though and a lot came out afterwards, the then head of MI5 Stella Rimington revealed in her autobiography that they'd used 'counter-subversion' exercises against the union,it was alleged that one of the high ranking union officials was actually a MI5 informer, the media had taken sides strongly for or against the strike so feelings ran strongly.

On the whole while there is grumbling about unions they do far more for the better here than if we didn't have them. The unions are involved in education, health and safety,equal rights etc. the TUC isn't a union itselft but its the organisation of the unions together.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 19, 2008)

Aye, I can concur with *Tez* that, unsurprisingly, unionisation was a very necessary part of the late industrial revolution.  

Without it, workers were no more than slaves to the factory owners.  The pay and conditions for the working family is hard to fathom now and yet it was only a century or two ago.

Even such taken for granted things as having a day off per week, let alone paid holidays or sick leave only came about because of union pressure.

In Thatchers time, the media painted the unions, particularly miners and car workers, as strike-mad agitators.  To some extent there was a kernel of truth in that, especially at British Leyland, where the shop stewards seemingly were less interested in their membership and more passionate about 'fighting' the management - that didn't end so well for the company as you can imagine (then again, maybe they should've made better cars?).

However, now we have swung too far the other way, with toothless unions and each worker at the mercy of the employer.  In the current climate, that will only get worse (not that I think strong union action would achieve much either at present).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2008)

The civil service unions are having a good try at making the government back down over low pay and redundancies, they've made them re-negociate over this last years pay in the MOD. It's one of those hypocritical things that governments do when they award themselves huge pay rises, lots of expenses as ours has recently while paying the civil service they rely on as little as possible. The average pay of admin assistants in the MOD is £13,000.  MPs are raking in money like there's no tomorrow, the threat of public sector strikes made the government stop and the pay rise they got while not brilliant is better. There's a perception tha the civil service is well paid but it's not, the government is one of the worst employers around.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 19, 2008)

As simply as I can see it... Unions do/did help prevent potential Ebenezer Scrooges from taking over people's lives. They do help prevent deplorable work conditions and ensure at least timely raises when they're due and such. 
They have however taken the jobs from the little people wanting to get in for work to feed their families but can't afford the dues and thus have to find non-union jobs. They do force people NOT to work whenever someone has a tiff and decides that they're going to get their (spoiled brat) way by making EVERYONE not work until it happens. 
They do take power away from the employer who may force someone to keep working until their quota is met (rarely happens) or else someone else is hired to do better. 

:idunno: Unions should be there to protect the workers but not to abuse the employers. Greed I think is what corrupted the Unions, greed and power. I think they need to be restructured so that they don't make a man who NEEDS to work to feed his family or pay his bills, make him STOP working because of a disagreement. That's just plain stupid IMO. Keep working/earning money and keep production going and resolve the problem in the meantime.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 19, 2008)

In the early days I think they were probably a good idea.  I mean, watch some videos on the Wobblies somtime... you can see what they were going for... but that whole Idea just became twisted and corrupt.

Like so much of everything else.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

With as many hungry attorneys as there are in the world, and especially in the US, labor unions are worse than worthless. You only pay for an attorney when you use his services, unions take a portion of every paycheck.


----------



## GBlues (Dec 19, 2008)

Ok......Let's see where do I start?  I live in the state of Arizona which is a right to work state. I'm a born and raised American citizen as are my mother and father. In my state I have absolutely no rights. If the whole company said, " YOu know what, you don't pay us enough, and were tired of being treated like crap.", and walked out. You know what the employer would do? JUmp with joy! YOu know why? Mexicans. He can pay them whatever he wants too, and doesn't have to give them a raise, or anything. Cause there illegal! (Clarification not all mexicans are illegal immigrants). Now, I have the right to quit, and seek out better employment. I have the right to do so without notice, however, most future employers frown upon that. My employer on the other hand, has the right, to fire me for any reason he so chooses, including religious and political beliefs. If I'm a democrat and he's a republican and he don't like it, he can fire me. Doesn't matter how good of a job I do, if he just doesn't like the fact that I'm short, he can fire me. So your going to tell me, that unions aren't a good thing? ok I'll consider that, and then I'll tell you that the reason for why the union is being the way that it is, to the big three automakers, is because they have a good portion of there company tied up in the union. Retirements, pensions etc...that's why they couldn't come to an agreement, because that particular union has a conflict of interest. 

My mom works at safeway, and has for the last 20 years, and the union has saved her *** more than once. Cause again, Arizona is a right to work state, and the employee doesn't have any rights. Now safeway wanted to put there retirements and pensions and benefits and a good portion of there company into the union, and the Safeway employees said no. Because if anything happens to Safeway there union falls too, losing retirements, etc. THere union is a 100% a seperate entity from safeway. Their job is to protect the employees, not the employer. Unions are a good thing when done correctly. Period. There is no if's, and's, or but's about it, when your boss,( and we've all had them) just wants to be an ***, and doesn't like you for whatever reason, at least if you've got a union he has to prove why he wants to fire you. NUFF SAID!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Let me see if I understand you.
- Your employer can fire you at will, for any or no reason.
- You however must give notice or be discriminated against in future employment.

But if you're in a Union, that changes things?

Last I checked, there are things like the 14th Amendment that makes discrimination illegal. (Well, unless you're white, in which case #14 doesn't apply to you.)

But you can't quit because if you do, your now former employer will hire illegal's to work there. Last I checked, that's against the law, and has big penalties attached when caught. Remember, disgruntled former employees make great whistle blowers.

I'm a bit confused here though.
You said


> Now safeway wanted to put there retirements and pensions and benefits and a good portion of there company into the union, and the Safeway employees said no. Because if anything happens to Safeway there union falls too, losing retirements, etc. THere union is a 100% a seperate entity from safeway.



So, Safeway wanted to put all retirement benefits into the union, but the union said no, because if Safeway fails then the union does too, even though they are seperate entities.....makes no sence as writen.

But as to "if you've got a union he has to prove why he wants to fire you." that's not always true.  I was fired from one union job back in the 80's for no reason at all.  Unions response when I asked about it was "thems the breaks kid".  Note, I didn't have a choice about joining. If I wanted that job, I had to join that organization.  Second union job I got to work for 3 hours a week just to pay dues.  That union also did nada for me, did nothing to help in a couple of incidents I ran into, including being told after an irate customer had screamed at me and threatened me, that had he attacked me, I would have been fired on the spot. The union rep's remark was to the extent of "that is the rule". So, my personal experiences with them doing more than stealing 3 hours pay out of my wallet has been less than positive. (Taking something of yours against your wishes is theft, no matter how the government or unions spin it).


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 19, 2008)

Unions aren't perfect?  Sometimes they are corrupt or violent or worse for their members?  Welcome to Earth, nothing is perfect here.  Meanwhile, collective bargaining is the only method the workers have to compensate for the power of management.  Without that, we just go back to the way things once were - company towns, children working in factories, and all that.  Putting all the power on one side OR the other (management or labor) just leads to abuses.  Why does our government have this intricate set of checks and balances after all?  It isn't because our leaders can always be trusted.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Explain why they are above the law, granted the access and leeway they are, and why I should be forced to join an organization I neither support nor desire, in order to work?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Some points:

Unions can force employers to fire good employees, if the employees fail to pay their union dues.

Federal law increased union power to force workers to &#8220;accept&#8221; and pay for unwanted union representation in non-Right to Work states.

As the late Senator John L. McClellan (D-Ark.) said, &#8220;Compulsory unionism and corruption go hand in hand.&#8221;


Want to know more?
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
http://www.nrtw.org/


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 19, 2008)

I work in a union shop in a right to work state.  When I started there 95% of the employees were union.  That was nearly 15 years ago.  Now it's closer to 15% union.  Why?  Dues increased every year, sometimes more than once a year.  Every new contract gave up something to the employer and lost something for the employee.  The last straw for most was the little notice posted by the union that any employee who had a grievance was responsible for carrying that grievance to the state office themselves as the local shop wouldn't represent them.  Yeah, the teamsters have been just great for the union guys where I work. :sarcasm:  

I think that the sweat shop mentality that many are warning would exist without unions are a thing of the past.  Hell, every time someone sneezes congress wants to pass a new law to protect the "little guy".  Add all the current labor laws in effect to protect workers with the expense of labor law suits, plus the cost of training new employees if the entire crew walks, plus the down time if the crew walks and I just don't see the environment from the turn of the 20th century reappearing.

I left the union a decade ago and don't regret it one small bit.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 19, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> I think that the sweat shop mentality that many are warning would exist without unions are a thing of the past.



It's already here.  Over the past 50 years, while productivity has increased by leaps and bounds, real wages have stagnated while hours worked have increased.  Meanwhile, the corporate pay structure has drastically stratified, while the top 5% of earners have greatly increased their share of national wealth.  Clearly, all those gains in productivity are not accruing to the workers.

It may be a coincidence that in this same time frame, union membership has dropped precipitously.  It now stands at 12.6%.  It may be a coincidence, but I doubt it.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 19, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Unions aren't perfect?  Sometimes they are corrupt or violent or worse for their members?  Welcome to Earth, nothing is perfect here.  Meanwhile, collective bargaining is the only method the workers have to compensate for the power of management.  Without that, we just go back to the way things once were - company towns, children working in factories, and all that.  Putting all the power on one side OR the other (management or labor) just leads to abuses.  Why does our government have this intricate set of checks and balances after all?  It isn't because our leaders can always be trusted.



Thanks, Empty Hands



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Today the United States and Canada allow this unfair system, while other countries work on the principle that individuals should be able to conduct their own private affairs and act in their own best interests. Relying on a third party that one didn't choose is a violation of their right of freedom to contract. Once a Union is designated by workers, it is almost impossible to remove at a later date.



Bob,

I'm not entirely how or why Canada is included in what essentially a discussion of US labour history. I won't argue against that point because, even here in Kanada, there are people who dislike unions, quite a few in fact. I've been told by people who can't recite one word of the history of labour; who have completely forgotten everything they learned in high school about the industrial revoloution; that they hate unions. I know people that live a pretty good life, thanks to union contracts, who hate unions. 

Issues of being able to afford dues is an item unfamiliar to me. I don't pay dues up front to my union; they are taken from my wages over time, so I'm not walloped. I believe that some workers have to pay up before the union will give them work in certain industries, and I find that distasteful. 

I've belonged to two unions. Currently I'm a member of an elementary teachers' federation in Ontario. 

From 1991-1996 I taught in a community college and was represented by OPSEU (Ontario Public Service Employee's Union). I've worked in the same system as a sessional teacher, just on the fringes of the collective agreement, and it was no party. I was assigned additional classes, many, many more students for the same wage and no benefits. Similarly, when I taught English to students coming to Ontario universities from abroad, not only was I paid monthly (because it was cheaper then to do it that way), I had to wait a month for my first cheque.

I've held sessional, non-union, teaching positions in three community colleges and two universities. Every single job I had in that world, my pay cheque got screwed up. I would go into the supervisor's office and say, "I haven't been paid." They would say, "How badly do you need it? Can you wait two more weeks?" No joke. I was left to explain to my boss that I actually needed my pay cheque. Nobody seemed to understand my thinking that paying me on time was just about the least an employer could do for me.

The first and only time this happened to me as a union member, I didn't even have to say that I would be calling the union. My boss raised the roof with payroll because he didn't want to lose hours of time dealing with a grievance. The cheque was wired to my account that day.

The day I became a unionized teacher, quite frankly, was the first time I felt the least bit protected and less like a snap-on/snap-off part. 

So my union experience is limited to education, but for my part, there is no comparison. As Empty Hands points out, it ain't perfect. When we're in contract negotiations, I read bulletins from the board and bulletins from the union, and I'm often more confused than when I began. 

I would say one of the things that plagues unions is a lack of member participation. It's kind of like complaining about the mayor and city council when only twenty percent of eligible voters turn out. Union members have to advocate for themselves within their union. We have pay attention when we have a leadership election.

Similarly, and I have certainly seen this, not every issue has to be a grievance. Lots of people get asked to do something they simply don't want to do and try to grieve. Some union members will use the union as cover for the fact that they don't want to acknowledge that they actually work for somebody and have to take direction. But that's human nature. Knowing that I am represented if there's a conflict, there is nothing stopping me from walking into the boss's office and having a talk and trying to work things out.

As for labour violence, being in a union does not make me an apologist for others who resort to intimidation, violence or destruction of property. I don't have to apologize for that any more than my boss has to apologize for employers who had the juice to summon people to bust a union person's skull. 

Mind you, I'm also in a union for elementary teachers. We tend to sing Woody Guthrie songs and share coffee when picketing. We don't bust skulls. :angel:


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

Why have US postal rates increased at such an exponential rate? It may have something to do with the multitude of unions associated with US postal workers. 
There are at least four, just for letter carriers.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 19, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Why have US postal rates increased at such an exponential rate? It may have something to do with the multitude of unions associated with US postal workers.
> There are at least four, just for letter carriers.



In a word, no.  The inflation adjusted price of postage is lower now than it was in 1900.  The only time it has been cheaper in real terms was from about 1920-1933 and 1942-1971.

Do you ever bother to collect actual data and information before you spew right wing interpretations of everything?


----------



## GBlues (Dec 19, 2008)

*Re: Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard* 
Let me see if I understand you.
- Your employer can fire you at will, for any or no reason.
- You however must give notice or be discriminated against in future employment.

But if you're in a Union, that changes things?

Last I checked, there are things like the 14th Amendment that makes discrimination illegal. (Well, unless you're white, in which case #14 doesn't apply to you.)

But you can't quit because if you do, your now former employer will hire illegal's to work there. Last I checked, that's against the law, and has big penalties attached when caught. Remember, disgruntled former employees make great whistle blowers.



Ok Mr. Hubbard let me see if I can make you understand this about the State of Arizona. In order to not be discriminated against you have to prove that you are being discriminated against. So if my boss fires me, because he finds that my personal political beliefs are not in line with his. You really think you could prove that? HE could tell you to your face, "Hey,Bob your fired! I'm letting you go because your not a democrat, (ie. republic, independent, whatever)." So how are you going to be the whistle blower? You take a tape recorder with you everywhere you go? Cause' you get him in court and he's going to say, "No I never said that. I told him that we had to let him go because we had to downsize." 

Now let address the illegal immigrant problem. So that you'll understand. First and foremost there is no such thing as a legal illegal immigrant, as many of our brightest politicians during the presidential election tried to elude to. Legal and illegal don't go hand in hand. I just want to make that point, cause it still ticks me off. Anyways, more than once I have been told point blank, " Hey I would love to hire you, but I can hire 2 mexicans for what it costs to hire you, and I don't gotta' give them a raise ever." And yes that is a direct quote! Word for word from a previous employer who I did an excellent job for. That was his reason that he gave me for not hiring me back on after I quit, to pursue other endeavors. Now, that was in the house painting industry. Let's talk about the first drilling company that I worked for. 85% of all there employees were illegal immigrants. They started everyone at $8.00 an hour. Actually not bad pay, for a starting position. However, some of the best drillers that I ever worked with were illegal immigrants and after three months I was making top wage, for the drillers helper position. YOu know how much my driller was making after having been there for 3 years? $11.00 dollars an hour. The white drillers were making $15.00 bucks an hour and not half as good as this guy, and most of the others. Why? Because they were mexican. It was made very obvious to us, that if we, ( the white guys) didn't like we could go someplace else. Or, if you don't want do that, we'll get another mexican to take your place. They'd actually prefer that.

 Now that same company still has illegal immigrants working for them. I know of many companies in Arizona that still have illegal immigrants working for them. YOu know what happens when immigration shows up? THey run and hide, they seldom ever get caught, and when they do there jobs are held till they can make it back across the border next week.Yeah it's illegal, but it's good business for them. THey pay low wages, and if they get fined they don't care. Shut down the business, they'll start it up again under a new name. You can't win. 

And now we have Barrack Obama going to be president who feels that there are many law abiding illegal immigrants and they deserve a chance to work in the United States. Yeah except they broke our laws coming here. Then you have the Republicans favorite JOhn McCain who says, " I could pay you $50.00 dollars an hour to go pick lettuce but you won't do it my friends, because you can't! We need these workers doing jobs that Americans aren't willing to do!" ********! I'll pick lettuce for $50.00 bucks an hour, with a grin on my face, running circles around them illegal immigrants, I guarantee it!  WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THAT JOB!!!!!!!!

Give me a break! People don't like unions because many times people abuse them. THey aren't perfect, but at least it's an attempt to make sure that you get fair wages, you have a fair shake at getting that job, illegal immigrants ain't gonna walk in and do a 10, or 20 dollar an hour job for 5 bucks. It's to protect you the employee, and if your not happy with your union, everybody stops paying there dues. Your the ones that keep them employed, without the worker, they have no job! FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! Does nobody understand that without them, you can't make a decent living?!?! I have worked since I was 12 years old with my father. I have seen the good without a union and the bad with out a union. I have seen the good with a union and the bad with a Union. I'll tell you this right now, you are better off, having somebody on your side, than nobody. Yeah, I could go knock my boss on his ***, but hey, I'm the one that goes to jail, has to pay the fines, yep, I got my revenge for be treating like garbage didn't I. OR I can be in a union and when they try some stupid crap! I got somebody with a little bit of pull, to help me and make my boss see reason and hopefully he will decide to do the right thing. THat's what it's about. Employers hire people with the expectation that they will do a good job, show up on time, not cause problems, and help them make a profit. Employees take a job because they need one! They hope and pray that there employer will treat them with the same decency and respect, that he wants from them. THat he'll pay them on time, appreciate there work, pay them an honest wage for an honest days work. How can I get that in a country or state, that won't allow it, because labor from some place else is cheaper? Who has my back? Who' s going to say, "WOe wait a minute you can't do that, it ain't legally or morally right." WHO? I ask you who? NOBODY THAT'S WHO! 

You know I just got layed off from my job. I showed up everyday for work on time. I never called in sick, I never stole, I never showed up drunk to the jobsite, I never claimed hours I didn't work. Yeah they layed me off, but kept the guys that claimed lots of hours they didn't work, showed up to the jobsites drunk!!! And this is a dangerous job! Guy showed up late everyday. Quit after two hours of work to go to the bar, and claimed 8. But I got layed off. WHy? Because I have no rights! I have nobody that has my back, nobody to stand up for me. Nobody to call B.S. you can't do that, before you lay him off, you gonna' have to get rid of the dangerous drunk!

So I'll ask you again BOB, and everybody else that thinks unions are a bad idea, WHO HAS MY BACK! THE LITTLE GUY?!?! Barack Obama? John "Lettuce" McCain? George Bush? WHO? And last but not least where do I go to put my application in for the $50.00 an hour job picking lettuce????


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> In a word, no.  The inflation adjusted price of postage is lower now than it was in 1900.  The only time it has been cheaper in real terms was from about 1920-1933 and 1942-1971.
> 
> Do you ever bother to collect actual data and information before you spew right wing interpretations of everything?


I actually talk to my friends who are now, or have been, in leadership positions in a couple of the postal unions and base what I said on what they have told me. Incidentally, they (collectively) aren't happy, the unions wanted postage to be 2 cents higher.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

GBlues said:


> And last but not least where do I go to put my application in for the $50.00 an hour job picking lettuce????


I emailed McCain the day after that "promise" was made. Alas, I got no response.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Gordon,
  I included Canada as my sources indicate that the Canadian flavour of unions is a slightly modified version of the American.

Nicholas,
  I'll be honest, I don''t have an answer for you. You've obviously gotten a raw deal, and it sounds like the systems broken in your area. The question I hve though is, are you a member of a union or do you think that unionizing would help your situation? You're sadly right on alot of the abuses, but in my experience, if you aren't playing ball with the unions poltics, they leave you hang.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 19, 2008)

The unions provided a service 100 yars ago, now?

they are nothing but leeches.

children in factories?

thats a simple bold face fantasy.

there are LAWS now. there is OSHA now

that sort of turn of the century crap could never happen,

What do unions provide? they make it impossible to fire worthless workers

they make american made cars too expensive 

they drove damned near all the manufacturing jobs overseas

If people would just educate themselves, they would see that they dont need unions.





Empty Hands said:


> Unions aren't perfect?  Sometimes they are corrupt or violent or worse for their members?  Welcome to Earth, nothing is perfect here.  Meanwhile, collective bargaining is the only method the workers have to compensate for the power of management.  Without that, we just go back to the way things once were - company towns, children working in factories, and all that.  Putting all the power on one side OR the other (management or labor) just leads to abuses.  Why does our government have this intricate set of checks and balances after all?  It isn't because our leaders can always be trusted.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 19, 2008)

the american steel industry? killed by unions

the american car industry? killed by unions

glen beck was talking the other day about a speaking date he had in philly

he had to pay $400 for some union guy to carry a case of bottled water to the green room

why $400?

minimum 4 hour shift

mandatory to use union labor

for a job a 12 year old could do in 15 seconds

$400

there is a reason every single union is controlled by the mob...........


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Do a show at the Buffalo Convention Center, and you reportedly can't plug in your own gear. You have to have a Union Electrician come over and place your plug in the socket. $50 per plug fee I heard, and a **** storm if you don't.

Quite a number of events are going to the non-union hotels with event space instead.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 19, 2008)

I've been on both sides and have seen both sides, objectively to the best of my ability.  No matter what system, there will always be abuses and places or single, instances where things don't work, but it is normally an "n of 1" situation.  

My personal opinion....Unions are a thing of the past.  They most certainly were needed and they performed a service vital to this country's development, but like so many things, when they were no longer needed, they failed to abdicate the throne.  They have stayed around and have refused to give up their stake.  There are now so many federal regulations protecting people and other venues for airing grievances, that they aren't necessary anymore and they are starting to have a very negative effect on business.  

Why do you think that so much American manufacturing has been outsourced?  Why are so many American factories closing?  Think about it....because the companies want to send work elsewhere?  No, because it is CHEAPER to.  They can no longer afford the wages that have grown entirely out of proportion.  

I knew a construction worker who made $55.00 to tie rebar....that is ALL he did.  In fact, he was not allowed to do anything else and adamantly refused.  Therefore, the company had to pay him to sit on a job site all day long, whether he was working or not and making more than the engineer that designed the building and his job was the tie wire around steel.  Not dangerous, not difficult.  Don't get me wrong...I have a GREAT deal of respect for workers like that, they provide a great service and are NEEDED, but we simply can't afford to pay him $114,000 a year to tie wire onto steel.  So they are forced to outsource....I hate to say it and it greatly pains me....but they can pay a mexican off the street with ZERO training $5.00 an hour to do the exact same job and they will probably bust their *** and do a lot more than just tieing wire.

I understand that everyone has to eat and has to look out for themselves and I agree with that.  With the way that job security and the economy is right now, you have to.  I realize that what I'm about to say is VERY VERY unpopular, but try to look at it from the employer's point of view.  Now, I'm not necessarily talking about Bill Gates here or extremely large, greedy companies, but in a way, they are all the same.  Everyone is just trying to make a living and every company has to do what is in their own best interests.  When a Union forces a company out of business because wages or benefits are too high to fit in the profit margin....who wins?  Everyone loses their jobs just the same.  And where does the Union go?  In the case of my hometown - they left and tough luck to all of the workers who lost their jobs.  As did in so many of the small coal mining or steel towns in PA....the unions forced wages too high, the corporation pulled out and the town DIED.  Literally, PA is littered with DEAD towns...in my hometown, you can't go downtown anymore for fear of being shot....20 years ago, they were one of the largest steel producers in the world and EVERYONE had a job.  Now, it is a cesspool.

Again, to look at it from the other perspective, when I had union employees, I was forced to allow them to go "work at the shop" or "visit the union" for as long as they wished, any time they wished and I was not allowed to ask why or for how long.  I had one employee who I got less than 30 hours of work out of per week in a tragically undermanned shop.  But, since I was "management," as they loved to say, I had no rights.  I couldn't complain or get any more work out of them.  

One union that I was forced to be a member of, I worked part time and the dues were $150 per year, in a job that I barely made that much in three months.  If I was full time, different story, but I couldn't do that.  And even if I was full time, that still wouldn't change the fact that all of my check had to come from the union office, so they took over a month to get to me - with administrative fees already subtracted.

There may still be some situations where a union is doing good things, but they are becoming few and far between and I believe that in the near future, the unions will work themselves out of jobs.

The point is....there is always another perspective and abuses go both ways.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 19, 2008)

Unions can block many individuals from getting a job in the first place by artificially raising the cost of hiring them above their perceived value to the company.  

Say a man applies for a job.  He has limited work experience and none in the industry for which he has applied.  The employer decides that with a little training the man could be a satisfactory employee but determines the value of his work to be $9.50 an hour, owing to the time needed to train him and get him up to optimal production.  He can extend an offer to the man, who will either accept or reject it.  Suppose, though, that the union in this shop has negotiated a minimum wage of $13.75.  The employer will not hire this man.  Establishing a high minimum wage does not automagically raise the value of the worker to the company.  

Also, by limiting the ability of an employer to fire suboptimal employees, companies tend to get very selective about whom they will hire.  I worked for a company where on your first day people would ask, "So whose kid are you?" because the only way to get a job there was if an employee - a good employee - could vouch for you.  Unknown quantities were not something they were willing to take a chance on because once they're in it's damn near impossible to get rid of them.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 19, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Also, by limiting the ability of an employer to fire suboptimal employees, companies tend to get very selective about whom they will hire.  I worked for a company where on your first day people would ask, "So whose kid are you?" because the only way to get a job there was if an employee - a good employee - could vouch for you.  Unknown quantities were not something they were willing to take a chance on because once they're in it's damn near impossible to get rid of them.



This is an excellent point - it is impossible to get rid of a union employee.  So when they are substandard, you can't fire them.  Therefore, crappy workers end up staying around forever, dragging down the organization and everyone around them.  

Another example...I had an employee who was impossible to get to actually do work.  And when he DID do work, the work was so far substandard that it had to be redone.  Not to mention the fact that the guy was over 40 sick leave says in the hole....but there was nothing that could be done.  Because of the Union regulations, I couldn't even file a complaint against the employee, because there was already an "administrative action" against him, which had been going on for over a year.  Therefore, that entire year, he was basically immune to any punishment or further administrative action.  Without those, I couldn't do the paperwork required to even BEGIN to think about firing him.  Even if I did, the firing process took over 6 months and needed over a year's worth of paperwork to back it up.  So basically his personnel file in my desk just grew and grew and grew and I was one person short, because if he WAS actually at work, he was barely working and when he was working, it was worthless.  Another "n of 1" but just another in the long line of bad experiences that I've had with unions.


----------



## Carol (Dec 19, 2008)

With all the discussion of labor history, a landmark piece of federal legislation has been ommitted from the discussion.  It is perhaps among the most important pieces of legislation in history, certainly the most important for the American worker.  It was groundbreaking for its day, and is still vigorously enforced to this day.

It is the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, also referred to as simply the FLSA.   It is the FLSA that defines the 40 hour work week, requires overtime pay, establishes a minimum wage  at the federal level, determines what sort of jobs are exempt from overtime legislation, and defines a multitude of parameters regarding the payment of wages.  Example, the FLSA definition of a volunteer:



			
				USDOL said:
			
		

> In administering the FLSA, the Department of Labor follows this judicial guidance in the case of individuals serving as unpaid volunteers in various community services. Individuals who volunteer or donate their services, usually on a part-time basis, for public service, religious or humanitarian objectives, not as employees and without contemplation of pay, are not considered employees of the religious, charitable or similar *non-profit* organizations that receive their service.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> ...





This was New Deal legislation initiated by President Roosevelt, however, much of the depression-era legislation affecting (and sanctioning) labor unions set the stage for this legislation.  The legislation was passed with the support of the union lobby in congress.  Unions are today still very active politically, lobbying for legislation such as the Family and Medical Leave act of 1993.  

Despite the baggage associated with some union activities, labor unions held an important part and history, and still play a role in the American workplace, despite diminishing numbers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

I would like to see some examples of where a union moving in has honestly improved wages, benefits, etc for the workers compared to other local non-union shops.  Preferably from this century.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

The Davis-Bacon act of 1931 is a nice little piece of Jim Crow that the Democratic party (the party of labor unions) likes. It is based in racism.


> It has been argued by critics that this law is a . It was passed, goes the charge, to prevent African Americans from bidding on government contracts. he Depression-era act was introduced (so argue latter-day critics) _after whites complained that African American workers had been hired to build a Veteran's Bureau hospital in Long Island.
> Congressional representative John Cochran of Missouri said that he voted for the Davis-Bacon Act because he had, "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South."
> Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he voted for Davis-Bacon because, "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Unions played an important part, however their time is past, IMO. I'm concerned that the stacked deck will become more stacked, with the appointment of Rep. Hilda Solis for secretary of labor. 



> "I am humbled and honored," Solis said. "As secretary of labor, I will work to strengthen our unions."


This worries me, but doesn't surprise me. 



> Labor unions and political observers praised Obama's selection to head the Labor Department.
> 
> On Friday, Harold Meyerson, editor at large of the American Prospect, wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times praising Solis' experience with labor issues in her Los Angeles district.
> 
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/19/transition.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview


Read these:
*Labor Unions: Socialism's Shock Troops
**The Labor Movement and Socialism**
Socialist Party USA

*Then, lets consider the question of is a Socialistic system really the right one for a Republic who values individual rights and freedoms.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The Davis-Bacon act of 1931 is a nice little piece of Jim Crow that the Democratic party (the party of labor unions) likes. It is based in racism.


Labor Unions have --cost-- the American Economy over $50 Trillion in the past 50 years.


> In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that *labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.*


http://www.questforexcellentschools.org/article.aspx?ID=4417


----------



## Big Don (Dec 20, 2008)

All of my cousins work in underground construction, they profit from Davis-Bacon as often as possible, and they are the first to tell you what a crock prevailing wage is.
$22.50 per hour. My cousin Mike got paid $22.50 an hour to sit on the back of a truck and hold a hose. Why? Because government funds paid for a portion of the project, and therefore, he HAD to be paid prevailing wage.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2008)

Are they complaining?  Because I don't think I got paid that to teach physics, especially when I first got out of college.  I know for a fact that the teacher's union holds me back from a higher wage.  They put me on the same level as a guy with a Phys ed degree, but I should be getting paid comparable to what other people with my degree have in the market.  This is one of the reasons it is so damned difficult to find science or math teachers...


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 20, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Are they complaining? Because I don't think I got paid that to teach physics, especially when I first got out of college. I know for a fact that the teacher's union holds me back from a higher wage. They put me on the same level as a guy with a Phys ed degree, but I should be getting paid comparable to what other people with my degree have in the market. This is one of the reasons it is so damned difficult to find science or math teachers...


 
so, a person with a phys ed. degree is not worth as much as a person with a science degree?

care to elaborate?

is the lower rate of pay justified by the amount of actual teaching experience?

Teaching is a craft that must be learned in addition to the actual subject being taught......yes, some people are natural teachers...but you can't expect to start at the top.


----------



## GBlues (Dec 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Gordon,
> I included Canada as my sources indicate that the Canadian flavour of unions is a slightly modified version of the American.
> 
> Nicholas,
> I'll be honest, I don''t have an answer for you. You've obviously gotten a raw deal, and it sounds like the systems broken in your area. The question I hve though is, are you a member of a union or do you think that unionizing would help your situation? You're sadly right on alot of the abuses, but in my experience, if you aren't playing ball with the unions poltics, they leave you hang.


 
No, I'm not involved in a union. Me and a few guys tried to find one for drilling, and we were unable too. Here is the thing for me, I think if it's done right, yes it would help the situation out a great deal. The problem with unions, is that there job is to look out for the employee. If they aren't then they're ripping people off, and your not getting your money's worth for your dues. On the other hand you can go too far that way, and the employees take advantage of the situation like at the post office. The unions there are constantly trying to to get more for the employees, and most of them don't work worth a crap. My wife had finally made it to regular, but it comes with a 3 month probationary period. You may not get any complaints against you for any reason, if you do then they fire you. Well, she got a complaint, and it was, " She works to fast." that was it, had to fire her. She was doing a good job, but, that was all it took. Now had she been in the union, things may have been different. She was paying her dues for 2 months, but was not recognized by the union. The post office didn't recognize her being in the union. Yeah, some unions are bad. Some employers are bad. If unions are done right, and the employers are doing the right thing, and the employees are doing the right thing, it's a good thing. Many people join the unions in the hopes that they'll have use it. I think of the unions as like the shotgun in my house I have for just in case, and pray to god that I never have to use it. I don't need or want trouble, you know. The same with a union, but I think alot people lose site of the fact, that anything we abuse, will eventually become a plague on society. 

I don't know I don't have the answers either, I just feel like something has to change especially in my home state. If it doesn't I feel like maybe there will be large problems here. People all over the country are losing jobs, there losing there homes, there vehicles, and nobody is trying to protect them. IT's like Moe my driller at the first drilling company told me once, " I f I don't protect you, who's going to protect you. I'm your driller that's my job." I was being blamed for a lot of mistakes that weren't mine, and he was watching my back. Not many people have some one that will go to bat for them, Moe was a special kind of driller, and I was very lucky to have him.

Anyways, yeah I think unionization would help a great deal if it was done properly, and not abused. On the other hand, I think no matter what happens there will always be people that abuse the protections that they are given. Look at food stamps, and SSI, and all the programs that we have in America, to help people get a hand-up instead of a hand-out. Instead of trying to find a job, and getting off of food stamps and Assisted living, they take advantage and abuse it, and do everything in there power, to stay on it as long as possible.That is not what it's for, it's not to ensure that you can be lazy, but that you can survive long enough to go back to work and take care of yourself. If it's there people will abuse it, and there is nothing that you can do to prevent it. However, because a few abuse these, (wonderful) programs. Should we stop helping those that really need and use it for the intended purposes? I don't think so. I think that if it helps those that it was meant to help, then it was a good thing. Same with the unions, if they do what they are supposed to do, and people that need them, have the help that they need when they need it, and they don't abuse those gifts, then yeah, it's a good thing. That's what I think. It ain't perfect, but everybody should have the option to choose a union. Matter of fact, maybe that is the problem, you go to work for someone that already has a union, and it's not doin a good job, maybe the employees need to tell the union your fired, we want a new union. And then find one. That would be much better I would think. Give the employees the right to fire there unions. So they can find a union that really and truly wants to serve their needs. Hey, I should be a politician.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




What do you think about that IDEA! That's freaking ground breaking huh. Bet unions would try much harder to do the right thing, when it meant not doing it would get there butts canned. Whoooooo!! Man That is a freaking great IDEA!!!! Yeah!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 LOL!


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 20, 2008)

BlackCatBonz said:


> so, a person with a phys ed. degree is not worth as much as a person with a science degree?
> 
> care to elaborate?
> 
> ...


But isn't that what the unions advocate to an extent?  Sure, most have a 2 year climb up the salary ladder but after that the guy that's been there for 3 years is making the same thing as the guy with 30 years experience.  IMO, yes, the lower pay IS justified by the actual amount of teaching experience... a true meritocracy drives people to excel instead of sitting on their asses collecting a paycheck for doing the bare minimum.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 20, 2008)

GBlues said:


> Yeah, some unions are bad. Some employers are bad. If unions are done right, and the employers are doing the right thing, and the employees are doing the right thing, it's a good thing.



If the employer is doing things right....and the employees are doing things right....why would you need a union?  For that one time when things don't go right?  That seems like a bust in the cost-analysis area.  Create a constant evil which causes a lot of problems, just in case we need it someday.



GBlues said:


> I don't know I don't have the answers either, I just feel like something has to change especially in my home state. If it doesn't I feel like maybe there will be large problems here. People all over the country are losing jobs, there losing there homes, there vehicles, and nobody is trying to protect them.



I really don't think that today's situation has much to do with unions.  People are losing jobs because of the bad economy and there is NOTHING that unions can do to fix that.  In fact, the unions are making the problem worse.  In a depression or recession, when profits are down, companies release workers to compensate.  Those workers then have to find different jobs or go into some very hard times, which is a horrible thing.  But when the corporations are not allowed to release the people that they can no longer afford to pay, what do you think happens?  Sure, they keep their jobs for a while, but soon, the corporation can't afford to pay ANYONE and they go bankrupt and EVERYONE loses their jobs.  It sucks royally....but the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.  And either way, those union protected jobs go away anyway once the whole company goes under, which just happens faster when their options for compensation are taken away.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2008)

BlackCatBonz said:


> so, a person with a phys ed. degree is not worth as much as a person with a science degree?
> 
> care to elaborate?
> 
> ...


 
This, IMO, is the crux of what unions deal with.  Collective bargaining.  For some people, its a bargain.  For other, it is not.

Let me reiterate my point, a science degree is worth FAR more then a Physical Education degree.  

The key comes in how you define worth.  In terms of market value, which is a combination of demand, compensation, and societal need, good scientists are worth more.  In an environment where  more market forces are allowed to determine pay, typically, scientists find themselves getting paid twice as much as the average teacher.  As you improve, this figure improves exponentially.

Comparitively, the same person with a physical education degree, who is not able to find a teaching job, will find themselves working for two or three times the minimum wage, at best, at some health club.  There are exceptions, but not many.

Unions level the playing field.  They remove market forces from the various specialties and stick everyone in the same pot.  Except that market forces aren't really removed.  Now they get reversed, so they end up driving highly skilled people out of high need and high skill jobs like science and math (this is why I'm moving on to grad school and the private sector).  This is the root cause behind the shortage of math and science teachers in this country.

And I, personally, can speak to this cause.  I like teaching.  I'm good at it and my students excel.  Yet, I know that I could be getting paid twice as much somewhere else and that I could be supporting my family better with my science training.

Here's the bottom line.  I'm not trying to be elitist.  This is just the way it is as I see it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> But isn't that what the unions advocate to an extent? Sure, most have a 2 year climb up the salary ladder but after that the guy that's been there for 3 years is making the same thing as the guy with 30 years experience. IMO, yes, the lower pay IS justified by the actual amount of teaching experience... a true meritocracy drives people to excel instead of sitting on their asses collecting a paycheck for doing the bare minimum.


 
Teacher pay is a little more complicated then that.  Typically, a teacher with no experience and no education beyond a bachelors degree will make about a third to half as much as a teacher with thirty years of experience and a Phd.  In the Hawaiian public school system, new teachers start at about $33,000.  The top of the pay scale maxes out at around $80,000.  

Here's an example of a teacher pay scale.

http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/ats/PDF/BTU_Teacher_Salary_Scales.pdf

You can see how years of experience and education level is factored into it.  By the way, this is one of the higher scales for teacher pay that I've seen.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2008)

I don't know how it goes with unions in America but unions reps/shop stewards here do a lot of work with the employer. We have a lot of laws for health and safety so the unions and employers work together to make sure the workforce is educated about safety. Often when there are employees in trouble the union will act as a welfare source for the employer where they don't have a welfare officer. If it's a disicplinary matter the union rep will act as an advisor for the employee. the unions here provide other services, like legal advice for work and outside matters, they get discounts for insurances and other services for their members. 

In the civil service the unions and management have regular meetings to sort out any areas before they become problematic. There is a legal requirement to consult unions before major changes take place like relocations, redundancies etc.
this is the main civil service union, I don't know if it's like your unions or not. Most of our civvie workers are in it. It's a very active union.
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/index.cfm


This is UK teachers pay.
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=75906


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know how it goes with unions in America but unions reps/shop stewards here do a lot of work with the employer. We have a lot of laws for health and safety so the unions and employers work together to make sure the workforce is educated about safety. Often when there are employees in trouble the union will act as a welfare source for the employer where they don't have a welfare officer. If it's a disicplinary matter the union rep will act as an advisor for the employee. the unions here provide other services, like legal advice for work and outside matters, they get discounts for insurances and other services for their members.
> 
> In the civil service the unions and management have regular meetings to sort out any areas before they become problematic. There is a legal requirement to consult unions before major changes take place like relocations, redundancies etc.
> this is the main civil service union, I don't know if it's like your unions or not. Most of our civvie workers are in it. It's a very active union.
> ...


 

The unions in Canada operate very similarly.

I am a member of a "skilled trades union", and while I don't agree with everything that happens within our 'local', they do represent us the way we want to be represented (mostly) because the same guys once worked in the field.
They ensure fair pay, reasonable work hours, educating apprentices and journeymen, and manage a fairly decent pension.

I don't think you can lump all unions together as being terrible.
In some unions there is a real sense of solidarity and brotherhood, with workers looking out for each other.
It's not all rose coloured glasses, brotherly love and employer respect.
Some employers get away with as much as they can within the confines of the law.....and sometimes outside of it.
They will play on the fact that an unrepresented worker is easily replaceable in order to make them do something that they would not ordinarily do. As a union trained worker I took classes that made me aware of my rights as a worker and the employers duty to make sure that I am safe while performing my duties; that i have the right to refuse work that I deem unsafe because I am trained to do so and what changes or safety measures can be brought into place so that the work can be done with minimal risk to the worker.

I am not talking about the local unionized grocery store that forces stock boys to pay a disproportionate amount into union dues and not be represented. The union is there for the folks that have decided to make the grocery store their full time job.

There are lazy jerks in any profession and being in a union does not guarantee that they will keep their jobs.
It guarantees that people aren't treated like 'the help' or fired indiscriminately.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 20, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Teacher pay is a little more complicated then that.  Typically, a teacher with no experience and no education beyond a bachelors degree will make about a third to half as much as a teacher with thirty years of experience and a Phd.  In the Hawaiian public school system, new teachers start at about $33,000.  The top of the pay scale maxes out at around $80,000.
> 
> Here's an example of a teacher pay scale.
> 
> ...



That's comparable to my contract. I don't recall what the starting pay is, but it tops out in the low 80ks (Canadian) currently, in my school board, in Ontario. Negotiations have been underway to get all the boards at parity. In my pay grid, there are ten steps, if recall correctly. So assuming one starts at the bottom, it takes ten years to max out. Having had substantial experience adult and post-secondary experience, I started at step five, which the highest one can be bumped up to. For younger, less experienced teachers starting out, it's a bit of a climb.

However, in our school boards, there is no additional pay for a Ph.D., that I'm aware of. I think it tops out at the Master's or equivalent. When I was in the community college system, I believe there were seventeen steps to the top.

I must say that 80K US for a teacher surprises me. I've read that there are jurisdictions where teachers don't make that much.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 20, 2008)

Well, lets see...as a UAW member working for General Motors:



I get paid a fair and liveable wage for what I do.
I have as much job security as can be had in this day and age. (current situation included)
I have medical, dental, and optical. (less co pays on most things)
As of now, I have a pension coming when I retire


I have *LEGIONS of people trying to kill all of the above and more* because they do not have at least some or all of the benefits listed above.
I have Union representation when facing expulsion or questions regarding benefits.  (Think lawyer for shop rules)

All of the above has costs and is taken from each hour worked and is negotiated and agreed upon by UAW and management every 4 years.  All of this costs me a mere 2 hours of pay per month (almost $60).

Being the breadwinner for a family of 5, with one being of special needs, I think I live a good life and am thankful for my job and the benefits and protections my union affords me.  Had it not be for them, I would likely have had my pay cut 60%, lost all benefits, or maybe even gone altogether.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know how it goes with unions in America but unions reps/shop stewards here do a lot of work with the employer. We have a lot of laws for health and safety so the unions and employers work together to make sure the workforce is educated about safety.



Same here. It's not all milk and honey, but unions here, working with management, have made progressive steps in workplace health and safety that affect all workers, union and non-union. This includes the legal right to refuse unsafe work and the right of all workers to be informed of hazardous materials in the workplace. 

We had interesting idiosyncrasy in the management of our schools for many years. Principals vice-principals were actually members of teachers' federations. A previous government pulled them out without notice. It was unfortunate because a lot of little disputes could ironed out before they had to become grievances.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 20, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> As of now, I have a pension coming when I retire
> quote]
> 
> Since the GM Pension Fund is fully funded, if you are retired today or can retire in the near future then your pension will be funded. I do not see anyway the company stays in operation and this does not stay true. But, I am an engineer and not a lawyer, so take it for what it is, my opinion.


----------



## GBlues (Dec 20, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> Well, lets see...as a UAW member working for General Motors:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah that's what I was trying to get at earlier. I don't think you can ask for much more than that. Plus I don't think that you can get it without a union, ( well, not easily anyways.). :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2008)

Despite my posts above, I am not against unions.  I see them as democratic institutions and I see them as essential features in the labor market.  As others have noted, often times, the union is the only thing that makes a difference between a living wage and poverty.

The sad thing is that I feel like a lot of the resistance against unions is a deep seated resentment of people who don't have what they wish they could have.  That resentment was marketed and bought by a large segment of the populace and its being used as a weapon to divide people...

...rather then look at the people who wish to see us divided.

The bottom line is that Unions provided America with a standard of living and a strong middle class that has never been seen anywhere in the world.  Elite managers have decided that American's are too rich and that Unions have to go.  Thus the marketing campaign of division.

I'll write a longer post when I have more time and hopefully, I'll be able to counter point Bob's historical analysis.  IMO, he fleshes out some important points, but he's missing the big picture by not understanding the nature of capital.

Here's a hint, those who control society are those who create capital.  Those who create capital create it from nothing at all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2008)

I look forward to your counter point


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2008)

*Unions and Origin of Capital*
By John Kedrowski

Where does money come from?  The heart of all our societies issues stems from this.  I team my physics students that all money has a hidden exchange rate in energy.  That every unit of currency is equal to an amount of joules.  Whether we acknowledge this exchange rate or not has direct bearing on how we live our lives.

Simply put, if a government or private agency decides that we need to expand our money supply to the Nth degree, in order to avoid inflation, we need to collectively find places to put all of these extra units of energy.  Thus, we are left with a hard choice.  If our economy is predicated upon an ever expanding pool of goods that correspond to an ever expanding pool of money, then we need to do everything in our power to keep people in a position where they need to purchase.

The end result of this is an endless stream of waste where all of our national wealth ends up in a landfill.  I tell my students that in the future, the only profitable place to find things of value will be in the trash.  Our streams of junk have energy values attached to it that are a direct result of our every expanding money supply.

So where does money come from?  Absolutely nothing.  Money comes from absolutely nothing.  For those of you who still think our currency is backed by gold, think again, that was ended in 1973 by President Nixon.  But that action was just the death knell.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to OWN gold.  The reason why all of this is important is because it forces people to accept legal tender.  If you are allowed to own nothing that could compete with the legally circulated currency, then you are bound by it.

And we are bound by it.  Bound to an ever-increasing pile of trash in which our grandchildren will find a goldmine of foolishness.

In the United States, all money originates as debt.  All debt originates from banks.  All banks borrow from other banks.  Eventually, all banks borrow from the Federal Reserve.  There is nothing Federal about this organization. 

It is owned by private corporations, by private banks, owned ultimately by shareholders.  There is nothing federal about where our money originates.  It is purely a fraction of what the shareholders want at any given time.  Thus, the vaunted interest rate, the rate at which banks borrow from the Federal Reserve, is nothing more then a racket set by the most elite portions of this nation.

New money is created when a bank signs a loan agreement.  This money is created via government fiat.  At rations of 10 dollars to 1 on deposit, this can continue.  Often, through creative accounting, banks can create money at rates of twenty or thirty to one and if they add fees, they can literally create infinite money because they need not hold anything on as a deposit at all.  

Thus we have our infinite drive to consume, our insatiable drive to spend, our never ending stream of waste.

Enter the Unions.  

In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed and the latest version of a European Central Bank passed onto American soil.  It had been a long time since Americans accepted a Central Bank, Andrew Jackson killed the last one, not before they tried to kill him twice.  Once, they shot him and only wounded the war hero.  The next time, both pistols misfired and the old man beat him away with his cane.

Old Hickory understood the destructive power of central banks.  He was a generation away from the folk that wrote the Constitution and demanded that all money be coined in Gold or Silver.  He also understood the undue influence that foreign governments could have if all of our banks were connected in this global network.  

After Old Hickory killed the bank, the insidious influence of other nations who created their money by private elite fiat, begun to hold sway.  Some have said that the Civil War was nothing more then the failed war of independence for our true constitutional values and that the wrong side lost.  

Now we are held in awe of the Teutonic Mind Science and minimized to our parts of the cog.

When capital accumulated in the United States, it should be noted that capital was none other then fiat money.  The individuals that had climbed high on the pile and worked through the power of government to throw their competitors down.  

Thus the Federal Reserve act and the Income Tax amendment, a further raping of the individual, because now the people who create the money for the government, OWN a portion of your labor.

The last bastion against this economic tyranny is the Unions.  People who dont really understand where money comes from or that elite psychopaths control us for their own benefit, understand that with a Union job, I can get a decent living wage.

Our Constitution allowed for people to organize under the bill of rights and this allowed for political movements among the people.  Some of these movements turned violent.  Some of these movements were subsumed by the Elite and turned into weapons against us.  Womens Suffrage is a great example, the elite pushed this in order to double the workforce, inflate the money supply, and stick all of our children in government crèche schooling so they can all be indoctrinated in obedience and self hatred.

So, what are unions now to people who control the money supply of the entire world?

An obstacle.

Unions are democracy in action.  They are people demanding value for their work.  They are people uniting against an onslaught of global banking interests in order to preserve their standard of living.  If these global interests decide to terminate unions, they need to kill the movement through thoughtful adds and by controlling education.  

If you have no idea where money comes from, how can you understand politics on this country?  Jefferson would roll over in his grave!

Unions are a response to Tyranny.  They are a democratic movement by people who ultimately wish to preserve the value of their money.  It all comes back to my physics class.  All money has a hidden exchange rate in energy.  If you continue to print an infinite amount of money, then you need an infinite amount of trash and consumers.  When money is created from debt, then you need to constantly lower prices in order for consumption to keep going strong.

The end result is a never ending string of political tricks that willingly convince people to impoverish themselves.  

My advice to Unions is to **** Negotiation.  Arm yourselves and beware of Obama.  Hes got Left cover and he will break strikes for the polar bears.   Im not saying this will happen, but dont be surprised.  

Unions are going to have it really hard.  Attacked from the left and the right.  Everyone hates themaccording to the media.  That is why everyone should join one.  Thats another reason why to make sure your 2nd amendment rights are upheld.

In my opinion, Unions represent the ideal that Jefferson hoped for.  A little revolution now and then is good for a democracy.  The unions scare the hell out of the feds.  Now you know why.


----------



## Brian King (Dec 21, 2008)

*GBlues wrote:*



> So I'll ask you again BOB, and everybody else that thinks unions are a bad idea, WHO HAS MY BACK! THE LITTLE GUY?!?!


 
Job security is an illusion in my opinion no matter if you are union or not. Keeping in mind that today might be the last day of your current employment can give you strength. Make every hour that you work worthy of your wage and a little extra. See something needing doing do it, figure a way better way of doing something let people know dont keep it to yourself. Treat those below you as equals and listen to them and let them share the rewards. Treat those above you as resources, watch them and learn from them and let them share in your ideas. Admit your mistakes early and with out prompting. All this and more still may not guarantee that you will have a job tomorrow, but it does guarantee that you can look in the mirror in the morning and know your worth. It is not the employ that gets your reward but it is the doing everyday your best that the reward is earned. 

I think that some unions do serve a need. In my family are many iron workers, steel workers and crane erectors. They travel around from city to city and state to state country to country working often where there is a boom. They work for a different company at almost every job. There is a need to combine for insurance and retirement needs and their unions fill these needs. I do not know if it is the most effective vehicle but it is the one running right now. I myself visit many companies each day, some are large and some a very small. Some are union and some are not. Talking to some union types I feel a little sorry for them for they are stuck in place. Stuck in the mediocrity of not being able to excel and be rewarded for the excellence. They look around and see the guy next to them do the minimum or less and they earn the exact same amount. If they look at advancing there are often road blocks placed in the path by the union under the logic of protecting employees. It seems to sap the strength drive and energy from them making them robotic in their labor. It is a loss for both the employee and the employer and all of their families.

GBlues I am sorry that you lost your job. There will be another and God willing a better place of employment. That fellow that you said was stealing from his boss and a drunk. There is likely a reason this person is a thief and a drunk and a person to feel sorry for and sympathy with. Doing dangerous work around thieves and drunks is stupid so it may be in the long run that you are better off in a different environment. You did your job and did your best. Keep the pride in doing a job well and strike the bitterness from your heart and you will not only sleep better but you will give strength to your family and that strength will be returned a hundred fold. This too shall pass. Good luck brother.

Warmest Regards
Brian King


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 21, 2008)

Brian,

I am unsure of which speciffic union jobs/companies you are reffering to, but in the UAW working for GM, I have many options open for advancement and the people I work with are not robotic slugs as you described or stuck in mediocrity.  I could apply and go for skilled trades, special assignments (which I have done), and more classification jobs within the plant...all with their own benefits.  To even imply that the Union is responsible for an unhappy or lazy person is a freaking JOKE (I've had two surgeries from work related injuries)!  I have had a plethora of non union labor jobs before I hired into GM 14 years ago...and nearly all were dead end with little pay and offered a lot of physical pain and no benefits at all.  I worked with more life hating alchoholics in construction than I ever did in any of the 4 assembly plants.  They all had one common denominator....*THEY WERE BROKE AND BUSTING THEIR BUTTS FOR PEANUTS!*

I'm not saying Union people are perfect, without corruption in some instances, or that it's members are without victims or compromise, but my GOD their is such a misconception out there that we are lazy and do noting.  I got news for evreryone...*IT HAPPENS IN NON UNION JOBS TOO!!!* 

If you truly enjoy worrying about your job every minute of every day or that you can get strength from it or that GOD will get you a new job, then good on you.  I like the "illusion" of job security the UAW has negotiated for me.  It seems fairly real....either that or my schizoprenia is really kicking in! 

It's a funny thing when people point fingers at speciffic people and apply thier impression/opinion of that single being an entire organization.  One bad apple...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2008)

A big thing here with the unions is education, not the work related kind only but also further education as in university degrees. The TUC works with Ruskin college in Oxford.
http://www.ruskin.ac.uk/about/history

http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/index.cfm/ltu/


Union reps and shop stewards are members of the workforce not a separate entity, if the workforce loses their jobs the union reps do as well. the average union dues here are about £7 a month, thats less than $14. for that you get advice, help, someone watching your back. If you never need it it's insurance if you do and it saves your job it's priceless.

My father was a strong believer in the unions, he remembered the bad times when the unions kept people going, supported them and how much thngs would be without them.

 "_Talking to some union types I feel a little sorry for them for they are stuck in place. Stuck in the mediocrity of not being able to excel and be rewarded for the excellence. They look around and see the guy next to them do the minimum or less and they earn the exact same amount. If they look at advancing there are often road blocks placed in the path by the union under the logic of protecting employees. It seems to sap the strength drive and energy from them making them robotic in their labor. It is a loss for both the employee and the employer and all of their families"_

There's no way this is true of the majority of union people, in fact I can see it being true of hardly anyone. The unions are the one that negociate the pay rises and the bonuses so everyone benefits. I know of no place that blocks anyones promotion because of unions putting 'road blocks' in the way, in fact I don't even understand what these roadblocks are! The unions here are working very hard at improving peoples education precisely so that they can progress.
I don't know what employment laws you have but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2008)

$60 a month in an industry averaging $15-20/hr is fair.
$40 a month in an industry where wages hover at or close to minimum (currently $7.15 in NY) isn't, IMHO.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2008)

As with so many things we speak of here that are outside the strict purview of the martial arts, I am struck that it would seem that we are speaking of very different things when we talk of "Unions" in America and Britain.

My overly low pay for what I do and my inability to do anything about it (other than upping sticks and moving to the area of a company that will pay what I am worth), is entirely down to the lack of collective bargaining power.  If we were allowed a union then we could do something about it.  Instead, those with the freedom to move and/or the lack of loyalty to their team, soon pass on to companies who pay the appropriate rate.

Unions are not the Devil, they are an essential aid for the common man in his battle against the owners of the means of production - yes, sorry, it's a Socialist ideal {boo, hiss!}.  I make a guaranteed £1M a year for my company off my own effort alone.  There is no fairness in the fact that I see less than 2% of that coming my way.  It is that sort of 'leverage' that unions grew to prevent.

Just as the democratic process was born in blood, then so was the path that lead us to Unions.  I find it hard to understand why it is that so many on the other side of the Pond are so set against the idea .  Then again, I don't understand how you put up with your entire political structure either, so that probably means it's another case of agreeing to disagree :lol:.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2008)

The "bad" thing about Unions is that they really do represent a political structure that has the potential to mobilize large masses of people and affect real political change.  Unions could, theoretically, shut down society if things got so bad that the working man couldn't get a break anymore.  It's happened in the past.  It's happened in other countries...and that is the real history of Unions in the Industrialized Age.  

To learn more about the history of Labor in the United States, I recommend People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.  It's a book that will open your eyes to a time when real people, like just about everyone on this board, got sick of their lot in life.  So they banded together forced society to change.  The book is written from a Left point of view, but its well researched and I think anyone can learn a thing or two by reading it.

Regarding my long hyperbole filled post above, thinking back, the point I was driving at is simple.  The Elite managers of our society are afraid of Unions.  they are more afraid of Unions then the complete joke political parties that we have now.  Unions represent a societal structure that basically gives ordinary people a chance to fight back if pushed too hard.  Without Unions, there's nothing even close that has the potential to affect societal change on a mass level.  Without Unions, I think the average person is a sitting duck and would have absolutely no way to stop whatever government tyranny the elite have in store for us.

Thus you see the constant chipping away of Union power.  You see the infiltration of big money and corrupt elements and the collusion of union leadership with that of the Elite.  You see the general apathy of the populace as they no longer understand that a "weekend" is not necessarily something that is entitled.  It's not the people's fault.  Not when the Elite owns all of the major textbook printers and basically controls education through its various foundations.

In my opinion, Unions are a canary in the coal mine.  When they are gone, any vestige of freedom in our country disappears.  If you don't think Unions are that powerful, I want you to consider what would happen if the NEA and the AFT, the two largest teachers unions in the country, collectively went on strike.  We could bar the schools and SHUT THEM DOWN.  Anybody with school age kids would no longer be able to work because they'd have no one to take care of their kids.  Society would grind to a halt and Teachers would suddenly have the ear of the entire nation.

THAT is the kind of organizing power that unions have.  The elite do not want the people to have that kind of power.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2008)

I live in NY. I don't have a choice on unions. If there's one in a place, -everyone- is a member, even those who don't want to be. No Union, No Work. 

Doesn't seem fair to me. To be forced to join a political organization to work and earn money to support my family.

Seems like something you'd find in one of those nations that are anti-democracy, you know, a Socialist state.

Funny how unions are a major plank in most socialist party platforms.

I'm not a socialist, don't support it at all.  Why would I support a socialist institution?

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't trust the Teamsters to lead the revolution against Big Government. I'd follow Bill Gates before I followed them.

I prefer to keep my right to contract, my right to set my own rate, etc, to myself, rather than be forced to give them over to a third party who may not follow my wishes or intents, as a condition for work.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2008)

I live in a  country that has a socialist government, belonging to a union is not compulsory. It's highly recommended though.
Not all unions are Socialist believe it or not, some lean towards the conservatives.
Not all unions are even political some are and sponsor MPs.

Bob, do you hate socialism or communism? to us here, they are two very different beasts.


Here, whenever negociating a pay rise or something to do with contracts, working conditions etc the unions have a vote on what the members want to do. Then they'll have a vote on whether to accept whats on offer. It's up to the union members what the union negociates.
All the rep/shop stewards and officials are voted in by the members too even the full time ones, no one is employed by the unions as a representative of the workers without the say so of the union members. The elections are run for the unions by the Electoral Reform Society who ensure the elections are fair and untampered with.
The motto united we stand, divided we fall has never been more true than about the unions here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2008)

The odd thing here is that I agree with points on both sides.  I understand the points that Bob is making and I agree that it isn't fair and that it reduces the amount of overall freedom in a society.

What I think we all need to understand is that United States Constitution provided all of the protection our society ever needed.  When the Constitution was ignored and altered, this allowed a free for all power grab through insideous corruption.  The people who came out on top are still on top now.

If I were to isolate the single most important way the Constitution protected the people of this nation, I'd have to say that it was in the creation of currency.  The Constitution specifically states that Congress shall have the authority to coin all money and that every coin must be made from gold and silver.  The Framers understood that the creation of currency was one of the most important powers a government had.  The ability to create money is the ability to control all of society.  The Bill of Rights, is an addendum to this clause, IMO.  The Framers were trying to tell us what kind of society they wanted after securing government most sacred and important power.

In other words, fiat fractional money is unconstitutional.  The Federal Reserve, a private cartel that is in charge of our nations money supply is unconstitutional. The act of giving private interests the ability to print fiat currency was the deathknell of freedom because there is NOTHING this private interest cannot buy because they control the printing of the money.

This and this alone allows the dangerous centralization of power into the hands of the few across the world.  Not just in America.

Bob, Unions are a reaction to this, IMO.  When the government claims a portion of your labor, taxes you through other various means, and then "taxes" you through inflation, the only way that regular people can cut a break for themselves is to mobilize.  The only way the "average joe" can lookout for his standard of living on a mass scale is through a Union.  

I realize this isn't a perfect system.  The best system was what our Founding Fathers designed for us.  Since that is compromised, what else do we do?

Who would have thought that Monetary Theory was the key measure protecting our freedom in this country.  Maybe that's why its not taught in schools...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2008)

I'm against both, actually.
Socialism, and Communism to me, are not the way I think people should live. I'm against all these "socialist" programs, and think the government should stick to keeping the borders secure, and criminals locked up, and otherwise be non-existent.
My views on a lot of matters are very close to these: http://www.lp.org/platform

NY doesn't require you to be  union member, unless you're going to work at a union shop.  It's 100% union or non union.  A Right-To-Work state allows a mix.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Bob, Unions are a reaction to this, IMO.  When the government claims a portion of your labor, taxes you through other various means, and then "taxes" you through inflation, the only way that regular people can cut a break for themselves is to mobilize.  The only way the "average joe" can lookout for his standard of living on a mass scale is through a Union.
> 
> I realize this isn't a perfect system.  The best system was what our Founding Fathers designed for us.  Since that is compromised, what else do we do?
> .



You restore the Constitution.  You do not fix a broken system by installing another flawed system. 

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty."

But American's would rather have false-warm-n-fuzzies than fight to regain what we should have had.

I don't disagree that unions have done some good, but just as we no longer wage war with sword and bow, their time too has passed.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2008)

We have no written constitution, we have the rule of law and the supremacy of the Parliament. Our protection is within the laws, the unions here have fought hard and long for the workers protection under those laws. The unions fought for the right to vote, they campaigned for compensation for workers injured in industrial accidents caused by employers negligence, they campaigned for equal pay and much more. In fact just about every right workers have in this country was won for them by the unions. 
They have fought hard since the beginning of the 19th century and whether people like it or not they have a lot to thank the unions for here.

And they are needed here more than ever as they are the people who fight to keep peoples rights and the laws that protect us!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> We have no written constitution, we have the rule of law and the supremacy of the Parliament. Our protection is within the laws, the unions here have fought hard and long for the workers protection under those laws. The unions fought for the right to vote, they campaigned for compensation for workers injured in industrial accidents caused by employers negligence, they campaigned for equal pay and much more. In fact just about every right workers have in this country was won for them by the unions.
> They have fought hard since the beginning of the 19th century and whether people like it or not they have a lot to thank the unions for here.
> 
> And they are needed here more than ever as they are the people who fight to keep peoples rights and the laws that protect us!


That's one of the major differences between our two countries, the written constitution. At our founding, after winning independence, and after scrapping the first draft "articles of confederation", our current constitution was written claiming that we had rights not from the king or the government, but we just did, and it spelled out a couple of them, and laws were written to protect us from the government.  At that same point in time, the rights of the English people were more privileges granted by King and Court.  As your country evolved from an absolute powered king to your parliamentary system,  you were required to fight for each privilege and right. I realize I'm over simplifying here, and a comparison between England and American evolution would be a great (though I expect oft heated) discussion.  My point is simply, "We're Different". 

The unions I've been a member of, were of little use to me, did nothing but steal 3 hours pay every week.
Some here, have had similar experiences.
Others, have found they get value from their membership, and I do not begrudge them that, not at all.
I think in some cases, unions were absolutely necessary, especially in the late 19th early 20th century.  But I also think they should be optional, and held accountable to laws, not excepted from them.


----------



## Brian King (Dec 21, 2008)

*dungeonworks wrote*



> To even imply that the Union is responsible for an unhappy or lazy person is a freaking JOKE


 
As much as always blaming the employer for an employees being unhappy unsafe or any other un? A persons happiness and productivity is their own responsibility in my opinion. So I agree with the above quote. How people react to thier situations is on them.



> *THEY WERE BROKE AND BUSTING THEIR BUTTS FOR PEANUTS!:***


 
Yup that is normal unfortunately for a majority of people. It has nothing to do with union or non union employment, education or lack of education or the pay scales of their employment in my opinion. There are people who make very high wages working in prestigious organizations and yet are still broke and unhappily self medicating. There are others that have paid for homes and autos, saved for their retirement and put children through university and are able to do so while working dead end low paying jobs. 




> I'm not saying Union people are perfect, without corruption in some instances, or that it's members are without victims or compromise, but my GOD their is such a misconception out there that we are lazy and do noting. I got news for evreryone*...IT HAPPENS IN NON UNION JOBS TOO!!!*


 
I agree completely so there is no need to yell especially as nobody has said that only happens in union jobs. There are many misconceptions out there but there are also many examples of lazy and do nothings as well, both in the union and non union. Of course the non-union employee that is found being lazy in many cases is terminated from their employment or never advances to more responsible positions or higher pay scale, I have seen it done. I am not a member of a union, perhaps one of you that is can tell me what consequences there are for an employee that does just enough to barely get by. Do they get fired? Does their pay suffer? Can they advance based on length of employment or membership rather than based on productivity and performance?




> If you truly enjoy worrying about your job every minute of every day or that you can get strength from it or that GOD will get you a new job, then good on you.


 
I must not have been clear so I will try to explain once more. I have not had to worry about my job for very many years, decades in fact. There have been trying times in those years but my realizing that job security is an illusion has allowed me to accept whatever might happen or does indeed happen and to not worry about it. I work not as a wage slave even as I collect wages but rather I work as a means of improving myself and improving my situation in life and to be a service to my community. 




> I like the "illusion" of job security the UAW has negotiated for me.


 
That is great that you like your contract and it makes you happy! Hypothetically what if the company you serve fails and goes out of business or your union gets busted or the pension fund ends up being under funded or the local politics and business environments force the factory to change states or countries? Would you still have job security?




> It's a funny thing when people point fingers at speciffic people and apply thier impression/opinion of that single being an entire organization.


 
I am not sure if that is directed towards me or not? I never once commented on an entire organization good bad or indifferent. I apologize if it appeared so or if my writing was not clear enough so that a person could read some kind of personal attack on some organization that has their loyalty and devotion. 




> One bad apple...


 
Should be thrown away or utilized in a manner that makes effective use of it.

*Tez3 wrote*



> I don't know what employment laws you have but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush.


 
Please point out where I did. 

Warmest regards
Brian King


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2008)

I think in your last there, *Brian*, the meaning of what *Tez* said was not aimed as a criticism but rather merely pointing out, as I have, that things are different elsewhere.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 21, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I live in NY. I don't have a choice on unions. If there's one in a place, -everyone- is a member, even those who don't want to be. No Union, No Work.
> 
> Doesn't seem fair to me. To be forced to join a political organization to work and earn money to support my family.
> 
> ...


 
Bob, i know you say you don't have a choice.
You have the choice to move.
Not all unions are political organizations....but doesn't it make sense to support the politics that protect its members?

You make it sound as if Teamsters and union members aren't smart enough to do anything of value. Plans of action are voted on by the membership, but in a lot of unions, you have to put in some time in order to get a vote. A lot of folks join and quit unions without ever really knowing their benefits and then have all of these notions that unions are terrible. 
Because of my union, I will in retirement enjoy financial security and freedom....in addition to my own savings, I will probably make more retired than I do now.

You said there are both union and non-union jobs available where you live. Go after the non-union jobs......start your own company.

You have to remember, a lot of the union folks out there are very pro-union and wouldn't consider hiring non-union companies.....but on the other side of the coin there are owners of union companies that do terrible things like hire non-union labour and pay them half the going union rate to do the same work the union guys are.

I'm sorry you've had a bad union experience.....but I like the fact that I have a voice in my industry, that there are standards being set and we are recognized as experts in our field because of our union training.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2008)

I used my choices years ago. Feb 09 will mark SilverStar's 8th year of incorporation, and my 4th year as a professional photographer...I'm also planning on moving to a Right-to-Work state next year and leaving the Peoples Socialist State of New Tax ASAP.

When I was a member, you didn't get jack until 3 months in, other than dues deductions. No protection, no help, nada. Seems if I'm forced to pay for membership in a group, I should have the benefits of that from the time cash first flows.


----------



## Brian King (Dec 21, 2008)

*Sukerkin wrote:*




> I think in your last there, *Brian*, the meaning of what *Tez* said was not aimed as a criticism but rather merely pointing out, as I have, that things are different elsewhere.


 
Really? I had thought with her posting the quote from one of my posts and replying to that quote by including I don't know what employment laws you have but you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush  that the *you* she was referring to was indeed *me* and that somehow* I* had tarred just *everyone* with a tar brush. I guess I must have misread or misunderstood what she wrote. No offense meant. Thanks for the clarification Sukerkin

I think I will bow out of this thread and this discussion. To easy for misunderstandings I reckon. 

Good luck
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2008)

One of those horribly fine distinctions of meaning between our 'versions' of English, my friend :tup:. She wasn't having a dig at you, tho' the quote to start with was to highlight the concept she was 'answering'. There was a switch from 'personal response' to 'general comment on topic' in the last sentence.

It's one of those things that I, as an Englishman, sometimes find trips me up on English language forums.  I can say something in a face-to-face chat that a countryman would instinctively interpret as being a general point raised on the conversation, to carry it forward or clarify, rather than a personaly directed riposte.  On-line, with our cousins across the sea, I sometimes have to backpedal and explain I meant nothing personal or argumentative but just wanted to carry a point onwards with an expressed caveat.

Who ever said discussion/diplomacy was easy when the language was 'common' :lol:?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 22, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I used my choices years ago. Feb 09 will mark SilverStar's 8th year of incorporation, and my 4th year as a professional photographer...I'm also planning on moving to a Right-to-Work state next year and leaving the Peoples Socialist State of New Tax ASAP.
> 
> When I was a member, you didn't get jack until 3 months in, other than dues deductions. No protection, no help, nada. Seems if I'm forced to pay for membership in a group, I should have the benefits of that from the time cash first flows.


 
I understand where you are coming from, Bob.
When I first joined the union I was on a 1 year probation.....which meant at any time i could be let go from a job without reason and kicked out of the union membership for violation of it's rules.

I thought that was a load of BS (just for the record, I worked in the same industry for 10 years before joining this union and I come from a family with a union background so i was constantly referred to as a scab), I had just paid a $666 initiation fee to join a union and pay dues to it that i would not see any benefits from for an entire year. Up until I joined the union.....I was a vocal union-hater. I saw it exactly as you do...infringing on my right to make my own contract for services blah blah blah.

I realised later that they do this to weed out the hackers.....there are a lot of folks that used to join.....work for a few months and discover that the job was too demanding and quit. Without getting into a bunch of numbers, it costs a lot of money to train apprentices only to have them drop out before they are finished.

As the non-union work died out, I decided to sign up.

Here is a sample of what I get because I did......free lifetime training.
Complete Rx coverage for glasses, 90% coverage for all drugs and dental for my entire family, a 36 hour work week, guaranteed raises every year, representation if and when I need it, and a very nice pension when I retire.

Can I work non-union in the same field?
Sure I can.......I would go back to making half of what I do now....no pension and no benefits.

For me it's a no brainer......had I chosen to continue on my path of holistic healthcare, I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable as I am now (although I still treat people with shiatsu because I really believe it is the best hands-on therapy there is).

If unions were to magically be abolished tomorrow.....the face of north america would change drastically in our lifetime.....and I believe not for the better.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 22, 2008)

Thank you Sukerkin!

I think union fees are also somethng different here, I was asking around where I work ( I support unions but because of my job am not allowed to join one, we have a federation instead) and the fee is usually dependant on how much you earn but the average as I said before is £7 a month and for most unions the benefits start immediately, a month is the longest you'd have to wait which is when your fee comes out of your pay. It doesn't cover medical stuff or anything like that, doesn't need to. Most have a small death benefit for members though. There's no probation in any of them.
What you get for your money is representation at any dicisplinary proceedings you may have, someone to negociate pay and conditions of service, welfare advice, education opportunities, free wills (here that's worth about £100) if you need to you have the legal backing of the unions to go to industrial tribunals and they will fight your case with employers and courts. Unions here are vey much run by the members, there are conferences yearly where the unions policies are decided by the members, beforehand there are votes by the members on everything and the union reps take these votes to conference, they aren't allowed to vote the way they want to they have to vote the way they have been instructed by their members. Union rules and policies have been changed very often by the votes of the majority of members. Before a strike there has to be a vote, there's votes on whether to accept pay rises etc. it may seem it takes a long time and is long winded but the members have their say and make their decisions. It's democracy at work. Perhaps the last bastion of democracy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You restore the Constitution.


 
I don't see that happening.  There are too many vested and powerful interests that would lose everything if this were to happen.  Nothing short of an armed insurrection followed by the "French Revolution Solution" would bring back the original state of our government.

There is a glimmer of hope, which is nothing but a fools dream of armegeddon.  Suppose the financial system did fall and the bailouts failed and the value of the USD dropped to zero.  People would be pissed off, hungry, and moving.  There'd be tanks on the streets and the huge monster military that we foolishly built would be used against us, but there is a chance that if enough people know the truth about inflation, debt fractional fiat money, the federal reserve, and commodity money, there is a chance that the people could bring that back.

Bob, you need to understand that all of the people who make money by producing money would be wiped out if the Constitution were followed to the letter.  These are the people who hold all of the levers of power in our government.  These are the people who own almost every major avenue of communication in the country.  These are the investors that own large portions of the real companies that produce real things in this country.  A return to the letter of the Constitution means that all of their "wealth" dissipates.  

The people are going to have to be motivated enough to pull the lever and drop the blade.

In the meantime, Unions serve as a bulwark against corporate tyranny.  They provide an avenue for people to mobilize _enmasse_.  They give people a voice in an environment where they normally wouldn't have one.  IMO, without unions you will see the wholesale destruction of freedom and working conditions in this country.  It's what the oligarchy wants anyways.  And they are doing everything they can to destroy the unions.  Look at immigration.  The so-called "guest workers" are nothing more then second class people that can be employed at slave wages and worked in the kind horrible conditions that make most American livid.  If you don't believe me, just take a look at how undocumented workers are treated in this country.  Here's another book for you, "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser.  This one, along side Fast Food Nation will give you the real story behind illegal immigrant workers.  Corporations are importing third world working conditions to the first world...and now they want to make that legal.  

It's ironic that this issue has so much Left cover because this is a direct attack on organized labor.  Only a political system compromised by corruption could conceive of trickery this bold.

Bob, in my opinion, Unions are needed more then ever.  Unions are one of the only forms of mass organization we have left.  If we have any chance of fighting the corporate elite, if we have any chance of restoring the consititution and becoming the republic we once were, if we have any chance of maintaining our freedoms at all, its through the type of organization that Unions provide.  

Unless you can think of a better organization that will mobilize people, I think you are going to come to the conclusion that Unions are pretty much all we got.  It's not the best solution, but its a weapon nonetheless.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

Unfortunately, I am seeing that a discussion of unions is colored by all personal experiences, which goes to show that EVERY union is different.  There does seem to be a big distinction between how they work in the UK and in the US, but if you are in a Union and had a good experience, you will be pro-union.  If you are either in or not in a union and have had a bad experience, you will be anti-union.  

Some unions still work and are still doing good things.  Some unions have grown so corrupt that they are no longer of use and are now detrimental.  

Personally, I've had very bad experiences with 3 separate unions.  I also see what it is doing to the industry that I work in (construction) and am very unhappy with how things are going.  

My last reason for my opinion is that I'm now in management roles.  I've been on the worker level and dealt with unions there (bad experiences though) and now I am on the other side and perhaps I have a different perspective.

Obviously everyone wants to make as much as they possibly can for their job and no one will EVER admit it when they are making more than they "should."  For example...my personal opinion is that a construction worker who places concrete should not make more than the engineer who designed the building - but the engineer has no union to inflate rates, so he's stuck.  This rate inflation was needed, but it has never stopped.  When the use was no longer there, the unions failed to back down, they continued demanding more and more money and more and more benefits.  

I'm all in favor of job security, but there is a fine line.  NO ONE wants to lose their job and EVERYONE wants to have job security, but not everyone DESERVES those things.  There are far too many people who get their job security from the union and then SHUT DOWN and do only the minimum necessary....although even if they don't, you still can't fire them....

I just think that there is way too much objective thinking that must be done to ever get anywhere in a Union discussion.  Too much of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes," and it is far too hard to see things from the other side.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 22, 2008)

I have to say I don't understand why being in a union in the States means you can't lose your job. 
Here you can easily lose your job if you don't fulfil the terms of your contract. Of course if the employer doesn't fulfil his part you can take him to a tribunal but there's no job security just because you belong to a union. Redundancies still happen, what the union can do is make sure you get the right amount of redundancy payments but it can't stop it happening. If you aren't pulling your weight or doing the job properly you'll be brought up on disciplinary proceedings which can mean you end up sacked, there the union makes sure you are defended corrrectly and procedures are properly followed but if you're guilty and you're sacked that's it.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I have to say I don't understand why being in a union in the States means you can't lose your job.
> Here you can easily lose your job if you don't fulfil the terms of your contract. Of course if the employer doesn't fulfil his part you can take him to a tribunal but there's no job security just because you belong to a union. Redundancies still happen, what the union can do is make sure you get the right amount of redundancy payments but it can't stop it happening. If you aren't pulling your weight or doing the job properly you'll be brought up on disciplinary proceedings which can mean you end up sacked, there the union makes sure you are defended corrrectly and procedures are properly followed but if you're guilty and you're sacked that's it.



The unions that I have dealt with have used their power to strike and their collective negotiation power to increase the difficulty with which employers may fire employees rather than increasing actual job security.  Basically they have made it almost impossible to fire a negligent or sub-standard worker in some industries.  In one union that I dealt with, the actual firing process took 6 months and you needed at least one year of paperwork documentation and no employee could be fired for a single incident unless it was criminal.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> The unions that I have dealt with have used their power to strike and their collective negotiation power to increase the difficulty with which employers may fire employees rather than increasing actual job security. Basically they have made it almost impossible to fire a negligent or sub-standard worker in some industries. In one union that I dealt with, the actual firing process took 6 months and you needed at least one year of paperwork documentation and no employee could be fired for a single incident unless it was criminal.


 

Despite the British reputation for striking it's actually quite difficult to strike these days. The days of the unions threatening to take people out are long gone, now as I said it has to be taken to the ballot and very few will go on strike, lose pay and with it some pension just because someones been sacked. It has meant though that the threat of a strike is now something meaningful that employers take notice of so when negociating pay etc they are more liable to come to agreement.
if someone breaks their contract there's little unions can do, if however someone is being sacked because of their colour, race, religion, sex or wrongly they can help take that person through an industrial tribunal and will more often than not win. This means the employer pays out a lot of compensation, employers now are careful to stick to the law. The person may or may not get their job back, it's not guarenteed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Bob, in my opinion, Unions are needed more then ever.  Unions are one of the only forms of mass organization we have left.  If we have any chance of fighting the corporate elite, if we have any chance of restoring the consititution and becoming the republic we once were, if we have any chance of maintaining our freedoms at all, its through the type of organization that Unions provide.
> 
> Unless you can think of a better organization that will mobilize people, I think you are going to come to the conclusion that Unions are pretty much all we got.  It's not the best solution, but its a weapon nonetheless.



I'm sorry, I don't believe that following Lenin and Marx is the way to restore Jefferson and Madison. I do respect your position and thank you for it. 

I see Unions as the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted, and while I will admit they have done some good, I can also argue that even the Nazi's and Stalin did some small good. But just because they did some good, doesn't make them right."A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . ." -- Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address​


> Roughly eight million members of union households voted for John McCain in the November presidential elections, but were at the same time forced to bankroll Barack Obama's campaign with union dues money extracted out of their own or a family member's paycheck. This disturbing news underscores the importance of abolishing all forced union dues.





> Federal law grants union officials extraordinary power over individual workers. Except in the 22 Right to Work states, federal law authorizes Big Labor to get workers fired for refusal to fork over forced union dues or fees.


http://www.nrtwc.org/nl/nl200812p5.pdf



> In a November 24 report distributed by CNN, CareerBuilder staffer Rachel Zupek observed that, while low unemployment rates "seem harder to come by in today's economy," in the second half of 2008 there are still a number of cities with "low unemployment rates and sizeable job growth." And these cities are overwhelmingly located in the 22 states that now have laws on the books protecting employees' Right to Work without being fired for refusal to join or pay dues to an unwanted union.
> 
> *Eight of the Nine Cities With Fewest Jobless Located In Right to Work States *
> 
> Of the nine cities with the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S., eight are located in Right to Work states.





> The fact that Right to Work states typically have excellent job and business climates is "no coincidence," added Mr. Mix.
> 
> "In non-Right to Work states, union officials wield the government-granted power to get workers fired for refusal to pay union dues or fees," he explained.
> 
> ...


http://www.nrtwc.org/nl/nl200812p4.pdf

For More:
http://www.nrtwc.org/about/theproblem.php

See also:
[SIZE=+1]*Labor Unions Institutional Narcissism - My visit with a big city union local president*[/SIZE]
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2099911/posts



> In August by chance, I met the president of a large labor union of a major city who was on vacation where I live. After finding out he was the president of a union I steered the conversation to politics and the upcoming election, the conversation was alarming yet enlightening.
> I will not mention the union, the city, nor the union presidents name because I did not tell him I was a blogger and he would not have been forthcoming had I told him. He was a nice man and I wouldnt want to get him into hot water for a casual conversation. It would be my assumption that to become president of a union local you have to be smart and analytical, using that as a baseline I questioned:
> 
> Me: Considering these times of jobs moving overseas arent you concerned every new wage and benefit demand might be the straw that breaks the camels back forcing your industry to ship production overseas.
> ...


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> if someone breaks their contract there's little unions can do, if however someone is being sacked because of their colour, race, religion, sex or wrongly they can help take that person through an industrial tribunal and will more often than not win. This means the employer pays out a lot of compensation, employers now are careful to stick to the law. The person may or may not get their job back, it's not guarenteed.



Part of my opinion is that we have several federal laws that protect employees from discrimination, so I guess I don't see how our unions are supposed to help in that respect....there are plenty of other constructs in place to protect for that.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> Part of my opinion is that we have several federal laws that protect employees from discrimination, so I guess I don't see how our unions are supposed to help in that respect....there are plenty of other constructs in place to protect for that.


 
We have laws here but proving you've been sacked or not got promotion because of discrimination is very hard. The union helps you fight your case, otherwise it's you against the company who will have lawyers. You can have lawyers too if you have the thousands of pounds it will cost, the unions provide a solicitor who is an expert in employment law to represent you.
 If you are being picked on at work it's good to have someone who's on your side.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 22, 2008)

Speaking from my UAW experience...



MBuzzy said:


> Unfortunately, I am seeing that a discussion of unions is colored by all personal experiences, which goes to show that EVERY union is different.  There does seem to be a big distinction between how they work in the UK and in the US, but if you are in a Union and had a good experience, you will be pro-union.  If you are either in or not in a union and have had a bad experience, you will be anti-union.
> 
> Some unions still work and are still doing good things.  Some unions have grown so corrupt that they are no longer of use and are now detrimental.



Have links to any union corruption?  Anything recent and aside the Teamsters alleged mob ties in the 1960's (one bad apple...), as in the last 10 years.  I feel unions are no more/less suceptable to corruption than anyone else...company managers, bankers, police officers, Karate Teachers, and that corruption is a human flaw.  This "Union Corruption" thing is tossed around a lot without anything to back it up.  It's like somebody saying Obama is not an American citizen or that he's Muslim without proof. 



> Personally, I've had very bad experiences with 3 separate unions.  I also see what it is doing to the industry that I work in (construction) and am very unhappy with how things are going.
> 
> My last reason for my opinion is that I'm now in management roles.  I've been on the worker level and dealt with unions there (bad experiences though) and now I am on the other side and perhaps I have a different perspective.



Very valid points.  I personally wouldn't argue against personal experiences and would not tout that anyone or any group is.  I have issues with my own at times as with anything else in life. 



> Obviously everyone wants to make as much as they possibly can for their job and no one will EVER admit it when they are making more than they "should."  For example...my personal opinion is that a construction worker who places concrete should not make more than the engineer who designed the building - but the engineer has no union to inflate rates, so he's stuck.  This rate inflation was needed, but it has never stopped.  When the use was no longer there, the unions failed to back down, they continued demanding more and more money and more and more benefits.



Job security *is* what it is all about.  Why do these engineers you speak of not band together and demand fair pay for their work as the union construction guys have?  Are they scared of the sacrifice and commitment to such a move and find it far easier to just accept what they are given? 



> I'm all in favor of job security, but there is a fine line.  NO ONE wants to lose their job and EVERYONE wants to have job security, but not everyone DESERVES those things.  There are far too many people who get their job security from the union and then SHUT DOWN and do only the minimum necessary....although even if they don't, you still can't fire them....
> 
> I just think that there is way too much objective thinking that must be done to ever get anywhere in a Union discussion.  Too much of "putting yourself in someone else's shoes," and it is far too hard to see things from the other side.



Who's to judge who gets what?  Jesus?  Congress??  The Flying Spaghetti Monster???  I thought everyone was equal in America and that their is not a caste system such as in ancient Japan.  Also, it is a well perpetuated and unsubstantiated myth that union membership makes one immune to disciplinary layoff or separation.  Maybe in the construction unions you have a few slugs, but man, that happens outside of the union as well!!!  It is a fairy tale to believe lazy workers are only found in unions.

My bottom line is that if you do not like Unions, don't join them or hire them.  There is an abundance of "right to work" states out there where you can conduct such business with workers of like mind.  My only beef with them is when they complain about other people excercising very valid rights under the 1st ammendment of the US constitution, _*trying to bring us down rather than bringing them up just because it is easier*_!!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Bob, I completely understand all of the points that you are making.  I've been part of a union for eight years and for the bulk of that time, the only thing the union did for me was nearly run me out of my job for working as hard as I could to educate children.  Now I'm in a private school, working on the basis of my own merit.  I know what kind of crap goes on in unions.

I just don't see another vehicle to organize enmasse right now.  Maybe if we had some time, we could build a new kind of social structure that would link people together and organise, sort of like a federation dedicated to protect freedom in the US.  Clinton made that sort of thing almost impossible, however.  After Oklahoma City, the FBI labeled all of these kinds of groups as "militia" and they (FBI, ATF, and IRS) make it nearly impossible to associate due to constant harassment.

Bob, if the **** hits the fan, there will not be any other "easy" way to organize people without unions.  It's a divided we fall scenario.  As flawed as they are they do provide people with a tool to fight against tyranny.  And we are going to need them.  Hell, we were a hairsbredth away from martial law in October when the damned bailout was being rammed through.  

Our government threatened the House of Representatives with martial law if they didn't vote for the bailout.  

In my opinion, we don't have the luxury to debate these things.  There are bigger fish to fry and we need to stand together right now.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 22, 2008)

Are all employers such nice guys that you can just trust them to pay workers a living wage for reasonable hours, and to be fair?

I don't know...I guess I'm just not so trusting.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

no one needs a union, if you are not gettign paid what you want, i dont know, maybe you could GET ANOTHER JOB, or get better at your job so you get a raise.

no boss woulds rather train someone new than give out a small raise.

Unless it is for TRUELY unskilled labor where people are easily replaced

unions are useless,and worse, they are poison. Every union today is a tool for the friggin democrats, they all donate money to politicians, something they should NOT be able to do, IMO

I would like to see them outlawed.

If you need a union to protect your job, that tells me you more than likely suck at it. If you were any good, they would WANT to keep you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Bob, I completely understand all of the points that you are making.  I've been part of a union for eight years and for the bulk of that time, the only thing the union did for me was nearly run me out of my job for working as hard as I could to educate children.  Now I'm in a private school, working on the basis of my own merit.  I know what kind of crap goes on in unions.
> 
> I just don't see another vehicle to organize enmasse right now.  Maybe if we had some time, we could build a new kind of social structure that would link people together and organise, sort of like a federation dedicated to protect freedom in the US.  Clinton made that sort of thing almost impossible, however.  After Oklahoma City, the FBI labeled all of these kinds of groups as "militia" and they (FBI, ATF, and IRS) make it nearly impossible to associate due to constant harassment.
> 
> ...


And, what good did the unions do in that political particular fight? I'd bet their lobbyists were working overtime to make sure Local 12 of the Arrow Fletchers Union got their special kick back.....

I know the government threatened martial law. 
I know they have a division of experienced combat troops in the us, ready for urban warfare. 
Try stopping an Abrams with a picket line.   
 I wouldn't trust the US Unions to lead me to victory, any more than the 7th Calvary were led at Bighorn by YellowHair.

Then again, maybe the UAW can invite them to play a few rounds of golf before cashing their own bailout checks (the ones they are asking for for the UAW) on the UAW's very own golf course?



> The _DC Examiner_ has more:What do UAW executives and workers do to relax? They play golf at the union&#8217;s highly touted championship caliber Black Lake Golf Club, designed by Rees Jones. The UAW golf club is in secluded Onaway, MI, as part of the union&#8217;s Walter and Mary Reuther Family Education Center. Also part of Black Lake are a learning center, a practice facility with practice bunkers, chipping and putting greens, and a small, nine-hole par-three Little Course.
> Golf Digest named Black Lake as one of top &#8220;upscale public courses.&#8221; And Michigan Golf described the course as a &#8220;classic&#8221; that includes &#8220;wide, well-groomed fairways [that] provide ample room for big hitters.&#8221; But some big hitters get special privileges at Black Lake. Tee times can be reserved up to two weeks in advance by UAW execs, compared to only three days for non-UAW duffers. Cost to play Black Lake is $95 per round.
> Remember all the much-deserved bad press Detroit&#8217;s high-paid Big Three executives received last month when they flew in their corporate jets to beg Washington for a tax-paid bailout? Has anybody in Congress or the media bothered to ask UAW head Ron Gettelfinger about his union&#8217;s assets and perks like Black Lake Golf Club?​


Hey, after 4 coffee breaks, a paid lunch and a private masseuse, who doesn't need to play a couple of holes to unwind before starting the afternoon shift?



> Tyrone Freeman, then head the largest Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate in California. Over the weekend, the _Los Angeles Times_ published new allegations against Freeman and his union.   In 2004, Freeman's local launched what they called a "charity" to develop affordable housing for its members. The charity's board is mostly comprised of union officials, and the charity shares office space with the union.
> The problem?  In at least two years of operation, the "charity" failed to spend a single cent on its charitable mission.
> The charity, launched by a scandal-ridden Los Angeles chapter of the Service Employees International Union, had total expenses of about $165,000 for 2005 and 2006, and all of the money went to consulting fees, insurance costs and other overhead, according to its Internal Revenue Service filings.
> Charity watchdogs say that nonprofits should never have zero program expenses in two successive years and that well-performing charities direct at least 70% of their annual spending to their charitable purpose.
> "Of the 5,000-plus charities we've looked at, I don't think we've ever seen one that didn't spend anything on its charitable programs," said Sandra Miniutti, vice president of Charity Navigator, an online rating service. ​  Running a union-affiliated charity that doesn't actually do any charity -- sounds a bit like the kind of job Rob Blagojevich was asking the SEIU to set up for him.


I wonder where that money went.....



> By now, many of you have already heard about the pay-for-play scandal enveloping Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Unsurprisingly, Blago's corrupt antics are intimately connected to Big Labor.  In return for a cushy appointment at the SEIU's _Change to Win_ coalition, he apparently offered to name SEIU's hand-picked candidate to Barack Obama's newly-vacant senate seat (from the federal complaint .pdf):
> Defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and [his aide] JOHN HARRIS, together with others, attempted to use ROD BLAGOJEVICH&#8217;s authority to appoint a United States Senator for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, including, among other things, appointment as Secretary of Health & Human Services in the President-elect&#8217;s administration, and alternatively, a lucrative job which they schemed to induce a union to provide to ROD BLAGOJEVICH in exchange for appointing as senator an individual whom ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS believed to be favored by union officials and their associates. ​ -- ​ HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH&#8217;s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future. ​  The SEIU, of course, is denying any connection to the Blagojevich bribe,


Of course. 



> For those of you wondering, "Senate Candidate 1" is Valerie Jarrett, the SEIU's once-favored choice for the Illinois senate vacancy. As the excerpted segment shows, the feds also have an anonymous SEIU official agreeing on tape to convey Blago's proposed bribe to his superiors.
> *BREAKING NEWS: Notwithstanding SEIU denials, Politico reports a Democrat source has revealed the unnamed SEIU official is none other than President Andrew Stern himself.*
> *UPDATE: NPR now reports that the SEIU official was actually Tom Balanoff, the union's Illinois chief.  *


How much is that Senator in the Window?

Since someone asked about the Teamsters.....


> *Foundation Attorneys Win Another NLRB Case: Union Bosses Retaliated Against Nonmember By Yanking Seniority*
> 
> Tue, 09/30/2008 - 13:02 &#8212; Will Collins             	  		 The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled in favor of a nonunion worker represented by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, _*finding that Interstate Bakeries Corp. and local Teamsters union officials violated the law *_when they stripped a nonmember worker of his seniority during a merger.


http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/foundation-attorneys-win-favorable-09302008
Not one of the Union guys? Back of the line there buddy.



> *Big Labor Thugs Beat Dissenting Worker Unconscious... Yet Judge Notes an Improvement in Union Bosses' Behavior! *
> 
> Sun, 08/24/2008 - 16:16 &#8212; Patrick Semmens             	  		Last week, the _New York Times_ reported that Manhattan Federal District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. ordered a one-year continuation of governmental oversight of the New York City carpenters&#8217; union, citing recent bribery convictions of several local bosses, extensive off-the-books work, and an incident where union militants beat up a worker outside a Catholic school until he was unconscious (because he had the gall to challenge the insiders in a union election).


I guess your rights are only important when you pays your dues.


All quotes taken from http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/union-corruption
Bias's noted, so check the included reference links for more.


Socialism and Communism aren't the answer to the US's problem. Socialism is merely the "gateway drug" to communism, and communism doesn't work. 

Unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid to understand that the Government doesn't create jobs, it destroys them.  FDR's "New Deal" which was rife with socialistic programs (and was very much to blame for strengthening the unions), delayed the recovery from the Great Depression.  The Government Jobs took jobs from the private sector, the government housing was poorly maintained, and often rejected outright. The Education programs, a failure. Obama wants to be the new FDR. His choice of labor sec wants to see the unions even more powerful. I hope they fail.

Because otherwise, we'll have mandatory government jobs, doing what the government wants, when the government wants, where the government wants, living in the government housing (that has to be built to house all the people who lost their houses), eating the government food, and taking the government transportation (since gas will be $21/gallon and heavily taxed, along with restrictions on vehicle use). 
And that, is not the America I want to live in, and it's not the one that Washington fought a revolution for, and that's not the America that I was promised as a kid.

You want to take back your government, you fight for it. You don't put in an equally bad one. Or a worse one.  How in the name of Jefferson will supporting a system that demands obedience and violates several of my rights and supports the system I'm fighting against, going to restore the Constitution?  Washington knew that, and he told Hamilton just how wrong he was when the later wanted to declare the former King Washington I.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> Are all employers such nice guys that you can just trust them to pay workers a living wage for reasonable hours, and to be fair?
> 
> I don't know...I guess I'm just not so trusting.


The only Union rep I can say good things about was the steward when I worked at one grocery place waaay back.  He's the one who drove my *** to the hospital after I ran a boxcutter through my thigh.  

But, I can't say membership kept me working. Same guy admitted that if I was attacked by a customer, the store could fire me for fighting, even if I never lifted a hand.

Can you trust all employers?  Nope.  I wouldn't trust any of em, personally.
But where there is competition by employers for good employees, you can do pretty well without a union.

Friend of mine has a company car, training and cert testing, full medical, and even a company expense account.  He's been there less that a year, and had all that (except the company credit card) from day 1.  Non Union.
The union competitor you use your own car, medical is rather wimpy, and you pay for your own training and tools.

Wegmans is non union, and constantly on the Best Places to Work. (#3 in 2008)
Tops is union, and constantly at the low end of that list.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/full_list/index.html

How many of the top 100 are Union shops?


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 22, 2008)

I give up. 

Not only do I give up with the sites software that just erased a very long post explaining my views on this topic because I accidently hit the left shoulder button on my mouse but I also give up of expecting any of what I consider common sense out of many of the American posters here on this subject.

I don't know what's up with you, truly, that you do not see what is skewed with your opinions. You'll get the future you ask for when there is no buffer between you and the owners of Capital and you do not have an extra-ordinary skill that cannot be sourced elsewhere.  

Perhaps it's a difference in moral perception?  I can't understand it any other way.  As long as you as an individual are doing okay then **** everyone else?  Surely that cannot be the outcome that is acceptable to the mass of the American public?

Enjoy the fruits of selfish elitism for as long as they serve you.  But please, no tears when you are not riding the wave upwards at the cost of others but instead have to endure the pains that standing alone when you are not strong.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Sukerkin - it ain't just us.  I have friends and relatives in the UK who are looking at the same problems.  Remember, the Bank of England is the template for Central Banks around the world.  The BoE invented fractional fiat paper and imported that concept across the Empire.

We're all connected in this net.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 22, 2008)

On that there is no disagreement, *Mauna* :tup:.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> Have links to any union corruption?  Anything recent and aside the Teamsters alleged mob ties in the 1960's (one bad apple...), as in the last 10 years.  I feel unions are no more/less suceptable to corruption than anyone else...company managers, bankers, police officers, Karate Teachers, and that corruption is a human flaw.  This "Union Corruption" thing is tossed around a lot without anything to back it up.  It's like somebody saying Obama is not an American citizen or that he's Muslim without proof.



I believe you may have taken my comment about corruption a bit too literally.  I'm not talking about Watergate or the Teamsters...I'm talking about corruption in the pure definition of the term:  "*impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle*; a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct, and/or an agency or influence that corrupts."  I believe that Unions who take advantage of Employers and the Union members who abuse their union privileges are corrupt.   And I agree, there is corruption everywhere.  The things that happen in Unions can happen anywhere, but when organized, things can get worse.



dungeonworks said:


> Job security *is* what it is all about.  Why do these engineers you speak of not band together and demand fair pay for their work as the union construction guys have?  Are they scared of the sacrifice and commitment to such a move and find it far easier to just accept what they are given?



First of all, I would guess because Engineers are considered "white color" workers and normally not associated with unions.  Engineers also tend to be in management positions.  But I think that you are missing my point.  I believe that the engineers are GETTING paid fairly!  They have no need to form a union.  They have on need to "band together" and "strike back" against the evil corporations.

This is what has REALLY soured me on Unions.  EVERY union member that I have ever met has this horrible "us and them" mentality against ANY type of management.  The ones that I have met all believe that anyone in any type of management role is an evil human being and lives for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the workers and taking away their jobs.  This is what I mean when I say that no one will EVER be able to get beyond their own experiences.  

How many people are big enough to think objectively about this?  Those managers are trying to do their job just like everyone else and wish no one else any ill will.  AGAIN, there are always exceptions and plenty of bad people who ARE in management....but it certainly isn't the vast majority that I've heard people talk about.

Do you believe that a man who places concrete or ties rebar and being paid $114,000/year is being paid fairly?  Personally, I think that this wage is VASTLY over inflated...especially for a worker who is only allowed and will only do one particular type of work?  Why do you think that the construction industry is being taken over by immigrants?  It saddens me greatly that thousands upon thousands of Americans are losing Construction jobs because the construction companies and contractors can no longer afford to pay them.  The Union shops are closing down and the non-union shops are THRIVING.  Companies just can't continue paying $50.00 an hour for someone who does a single job....or $2000.00 a day for someone who sits in a Crane, whether it is used or not and sleeps or reads when not operating the crane.  That operator can be replaced by immigrants who are paid FAR FAR less and will do anything that they are asked.  I think you misunderstand....I don't hate the idea of Unions, I hate what they have done to the industry that I work in.



dungeonworks said:


> Who's to judge who gets what?  Jesus?  Congress??  The Flying Spaghetti Monster???  I thought everyone was equal in America and that their is not a caste system such as in ancient Japan.  Also, it is a well perpetuated and unsubstantiated myth that union membership makes one immune to disciplinary layoff or separation.  Maybe in the construction unions you have a few slugs, but man, that happens outside of the union as well!!!  It is a fairy tale to believe lazy workers are only found in unions.



Again, no one EVER said that the only Lazy people in the world work in Unions.  My personal problem is that in an attempt to give job security to the GOOD workers, the bad workers get a free ride.  Non-Union....yes, you have to trust that the company for job security, which is a foreign concept it seems to any Union.  Again, MY EXPERIENCE ONLY, but they seem to operate on created mistrust of the company in the workers.



dungeonworks said:


> My bottom line is that if you do not like Unions, don't join them or hire them.  There is an abundance of "right to work" states out there where you can conduct such business with workers of like mind.  My only beef with them is when they complain about other people excercising very valid rights under the 1st ammendment of the US constitution, _*trying to bring us down rather than bringing them up just because it is easier*_!!!



Again, I never have to worry about it.  Being active duty military, we have no unions.  Our Government civilians are largely unionized, which just means that I have to deal with the unions for the rest of my career and unfortunately, I am intimately familiar with their operations and processes.  

I have absolutely no problem with a Union that is doing its job and functioning properly.  A union that exists to unite the people and ensure fair work conditions, pay and benefit.  My problem comes when they overstep that line and greed begins to be their motivation.  Demaning pay far beyond the job description, benefits beyond what the company can afford, and anything that takes ONLY the workers into mind with no consideration for the well being of the company that employs them.  I suppose I'm way off there....but I saw the Unions destroy my home town.  When Bethlehem steel couldn't afford to pay the overinflated union wages and shut down their plants and pulled out, causing EVERYONE in the city to lose their jobs....my family members included.....where do you think the Union was?  The union support left when the company did.

Like I said...my personal experiences and beliefs.  I suppose it isn't the idea of a union that I have any problem with.  I thikn that it is a great idea and for a long time, it is what kept America alive.  I just dislike what it has become in SOME PLACES.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I give up.
> 
> Not only do I give up with the sites software that just erased a very long post explaining my views on this topic because I accidently hit the left shoulder button on my mouse but I also give up of expecting any of what I consider common sense out of many of the American posters here on this subject.
> 
> ...



I dunno Mark, from what you Brits are saying...it really seems like there is just a fundamental difference in what the Unions are and do.  It almost sounds like they are still functioning there how they were originally intended to here.  Although I would be surprised if SOME of the unions didn't have some of the same problems.  The kind of stuff that I've seen almost seem inevitable once they have reached their initial goal.

I mean really....you have this organization of workers with the power to influence the company who DEMAND fair pay, good work conditions, job security, and good benefits.  But what do they do once those things have been attained?  

Do they sit back and "watch" until they are needed again?  Do they dissolve because they are no longer needed?  Or do they stay around and continue demanding more?  and more....and more and more.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 22, 2008)

Aye, this I do concur with.

Further I must apologise for the edge of overt emotionality in my previous post. 

It has nothing to do with the subject at hand and a lot to do with the fact that this evening I was right there at the scene of a nasty road traffic accident. 
I guess I really shouldn't be posting at all as I'm likely to treat almost any topic as trivial or give free vent to things that I shouldn't - my apologies to all .


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I would like to see them outlawed.




Howza about you shut the hell up?


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, this I do concur with.
> 
> Further I must apologise for the edge of overt emotionality in my previous post.
> 
> ...



Its quite alright, completely understandable...I hope you're doing ok.  This can be an emotional subject anyway!  It is tied to a person's pay and livihood!


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

We've done very well so far, so please continue to keep things civil.  Non-attribution and such, everyone is entitled an opinion.


----------



## MJS (Dec 22, 2008)

*ADMIN NOTE*

*ATTENTION ALL USERS*

*Lets keep the discussion at a civil level without the personal shots and rude comments.  *

*Mike Slosek*
*MT Asst. Admin*


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> no one needs a union, if you are not gettign paid what you want, i dont know, maybe you could GET ANOTHER JOB, or get better at your job so you get a raise.



That's a fairly broad sweep of the brush, don't you think? True, not everyone wants a union. Many folks do well without. To say that nobody needs one is a vast generalization.



> no boss woulds rather train someone new than give out a small raise.
> Unless it is for TRUELY unskilled labor where people are easily replaced



I'm torn on this one. I know that there are jobs that people do in the short term that they don't expect to make their career. But that's very easy to say when you know you're just passing through. Is a worker in a lesser-skilled job less entitled to some sort of process to measure his contribution and compensate him.



> unions are useless,and worse, they are poison. Every union today is a tool for the friggin democrats, they all donate money to politicians, something they should NOT be able to do, IMO



On that we would agree, providing your analysis includes also the vast donations made by corporate and other interests. What you're talking about is campaign financing in general, which is a dirty business.



> I would like to see them outlawed.



What can I say? 



> If you need a union to protect your job, that tells me you more than likely suck at it. If you were any good, they would WANT to keep you.



That presupposes that unions protect all jobs -- they don't. If profits are down or if funding is cut, people get laid off. Last in; first out. I've been there, ten years ago. Five-and-a-half years teaching community college, the Provincial gov't took an axe to funding. Two-hundred-and-sixty academic and support staff jobs simply vanished.

But there was a process, and that's what's being conscientiously ignored by anti-union comments in this thread:

Unionized organizations work under a collective agreement, or a contract. That contract is not a union document; it's not a management document. Representatives of both groups sat down and worked out an agreement that is satisfactory to management and voted on by the membership. When that contract expires, and bargaining has progressed, my union can call for a strike vote. That is a legal activity. In my case, strikes have been rare. I've never actually walked the picket line as a teacher. I have had to "work to rule," which means workers in my category withhold a number of voluntary services.

I say again, this is all legal. Unfortunately, when you read about a strike or see it on television, certainly in North America, that legal process is quickly forgotten about. The fact that workers are fighting to save jobs, or to improve their lot goes out the window. What does get reported on is the inconvenience it brings to others. It doesn't matter if you're watching Fox or CNN, or some of the media outlets in my country. I you watch labour coverage, all the media have a funny way of making it sound like strikers broke the law.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 22, 2008)

Bob,

Your link to Daryl Hunter's blog is leaves me kind of flat:



> In August by chance, I met the president of a large labor union of a major city who was on vacation where I live. After finding out he was the president of a union I steered the conversation to politics and the upcoming election, the conversation was alarming yet enlightening.
> I will not mention the union, the city, nor the union presidents name because I did not tell him I was a blogger and he would not have been forthcoming had I told him.
> ...
> 
> ...



First, he doesn't say whom he interviewed. By not naming the source which his entire article is based up, his story is (1) suspect and (2) immune to scrutiny or verification. It's not even journalism. I know the rules are different in the blogosphere, but this is not even reliable.

Also, where's the big surprise in the union guy saying he's going to get the best deal he can for workers -- that's his job? Just as it is the job of a business to maximize its profits. Were those mortgage lenders thinking about what was best for America? This is now twice in twenty years that the US government has stepped in to cough up billions in taxpayer dollars to circumvent the collapse of the banking system.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

no gordon, i do not think it is a broad brush.

IMO, no one NEEDS a union. People have the choice to work there, or not.

there is always another job

if the managment treats people bad, those people will leave. that business will go under

survival of the fittest.

works in nature, works in the work force.

the problem is that unions try to treat everything as if everyone is equal

that is a fantasy

some people suck, they should be able to fire them

some people rock, a company should be able to keep them, regardless of seniority

and i agree, I dont want unions OR business donating to politics.

I KNOW unions, my mother was FORCED to join one to get a job, she was FORCED to pay dues, FORCED to strike, FORCED to do 4 hours a day on the picket lines for so called "strike wages" that were less than 25% of her normal wage, FORCED to not go out and get another job, she was threatened that if she got another job while the union was on strike, bad things would happen to me, FORCED to put up with a man on her shift who wouldnt keep his hands to himself because he was a delegate

**** UNIONS


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Howza about you shut the hell up?



no


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> no gordon, i do not think it is a broad brush.
> 
> IMO, no one NEEDS a union. People have the choice to work there, or not.
> 
> ...



Based on what you've said in a previous post, management just gets new workers.

But it what we're talking about is choice, then people who don't want union jobs should choose to work for a non-union shop. Like you say, there's always another job.



> I KNOW unions, my mother was FORCED to join one to get a job, she was FORCED to pay dues, FORCED to strike, FORCED to do 4 hours a day on the picket lines for so called "strike wages" that were less than 25% of her normal wage, FORCED to not go out and get another job, she was threatened that if she got another job while the union was on strike, bad things would happen to me, FORCED to put up with a man on her shift who wouldnt keep his hands to himself because he was a delegate



I certainly won't dispute what you have said here. Wouldn't dream of it. Some people are thugs, bullies and dinosaurs. I find what you describe, in terms of threats and physical contact, invidious.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

When i was old enough to understand what the union was doing to her, i told her to quit, she said simply, "I was a single woman with a child to raise, i didnt have the luxury of being picky"

couldnt argue with that

I HATE unions, I hate the lazy worthless people that use them to hold onto a job that they couldnt keep otherwise, I hate the cost increases that come from greedy unions.I hate the greedy unions destroyed the american steel industry and they are well on thier way to doing the same with the american auto industry.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> When i was old enough to understand what the union was doing to her, i told her to quit, she said simply, "I was a single woman with a child to raise, i didnt have the luxury of being picky"
> 
> couldnt argue with that
> 
> I HATE unions, I hate the lazy worthless people that use them to hold onto a job that they couldnt keep otherwise, I hate the cost increases that come from greedy unions.I hate the greedy unions destroyed the american steel industry and they are well on thier way to doing the same with the american auto industry.


 
There are other points of view out there.  From my point of view, the unions aren't THAT bad...and that is after belonging to one.  Also, I think you should seriously consider doing some research into the downfall of American Manufacturing.  It's not as so easy to blame Unions once you understand how globalization of industry was actually accomplished.  From my point of view, Unions are fighting a battle to maintain a standard of living that working could expect a generation ago.  This is a battle they are losing.

Also, I think you need to really take a look at working conditions in places where in which American labor is being shipped.  Do you really want to deliver those standards here?


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 22, 2008)

what a bunch of crap.

the whole "if you dont like unions, you want kids working in foundrys" is a MYTH

the government keeps stuff like that happening now, not the unions.

The unions are not protecting anyone or anything other than themselves.

108 years ago they served a purpose, now? nothing good comes from them.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2008)

No, no one needs a union. The benefits they supposedly provide, with the exception of collective bargaining, are available to anyone. You just have to know what your rights and responsibilities are. Workplace unsafe? OSHA! Illegal practices? Labor Board! Americans have no problem suing each other for the most idiotic things, sue your boss if he is screwing you.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> It's not as so easy to blame Unions once you understand how globalization of industry was actually accomplished.


 So, you choose to ignore the added costs caused by unions?





> From my point of view, Unions are fighting a battle to maintain a standard of living that working could expect a generation ago.  This is a battle they are losing.


That is a crock of something brown and smelly. A generation ago there was no cable TV, much less Broadband internet, etc.





> Also, I think you need to really take a look at working conditions in places where in which American labor is being shipped.  Do you really want to deliver those standards here?


Another crock. As stated, if you take responsibility for yourself, you will know what your rights are and you will not be screwed by "the man." If you are you will know the proper actions to take to rectify the situation. Also, it is worth noting that many of the same people who tell us there are no universal morals and that we have no right to judge other cultures based on our own mores, are the same people who whine about "bringing those standards over here". Japanese factories are in many cases much more efficiently run than union shops here in the US, we certainly wouldn't want those standards brought over here.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Japanese factories are in many cases much more efficiently run than union shops here in the US, we certainly wouldn't want those standards brought over here.



This is actually an insightful point.  I'm not sure what influence the Unions actually have, although I can personally see a connection.

For years, the Japanese have been leading the world in business process efficiency and the American factories and manufacturing world is falling sadly behind.  The ideas set forth in "Lean Thinking" and "Business Process Reengineering" are only now starting to take hold in the US, but they were originally cultivated over 20 years ago in Japan.  I feel that the US MUST reengineer and lean down to survive.  

But reengineering and leaning processes means creating efficiencies....which means often cutting jobs.  Which we cannot do due to Unions.  It is a terrible thing when anyone loses a job, but again, corporations cannot keep up because they don't have the option.  But that leads to a moral question....where is the line?  Corporations must be as efficient as possible and do their work at the lowest possible cost, but where is the trade-off between efficiency and jobs?

Isn't that really what we're all talking about here?  Where that line is drawn?  Between profit for the company and profit for the individual?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> what a bunch of crap.


 
None of your working conditions are entitlements.  All of it can be taken away.  OSHA standards can be completely subverted.  Little kids can, AND ARE, put to work in the fields without any kind of protection from pestacides, the sun, much less child labor laws, IN THIS COUNTRY.  If you don't beleive me, take a look at some of the books I suggested up thread.  Hell, the vaunted "weekend" is becoming a thing of the past.

The bottom line is this, you are going to be proven wrong in the worse imaginable way.  Your kids are going to suffer because of what you beleive.  Don't think for one second that the destruction of the unions will protect any of the working conditions in which you feel entitled.  

Without unions, without people standing up to capital and demanding fair compensation, IMO, you are not going to see any working person with a wage anywhere close to what people are making now.  Everyone will be impoverished.

I'm not willing to sit back and let history prove me right on this one.  And, despite your ill feelings, I am still willing stand up and fight for you.  In essence, you are being protected by the herd in exactly the same way the uninnoculated are by those who are vaccinated.  

You let the herd revert and suddenly YOU get sick.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> That is a crock of something brown and smelly.


 
The key to understanding what is going on, to understanding all of my posts in this thread, and to understanding the importance in unions lies in understanding what has happened to the value of the USD over the past 100 years.  

This isn't something you are going to "get" by reading this thread.  It is something you are going to have to think about and really consider against some very deeply held beleifs.  

I am not the biggest supporter of unions.  In fact, I think they are counter productive in many areas of our society, but they do some things right.  They are a reaction to the overwhelming concentration of capital.

Here is a couple of things you can check out if you really want to think about this issue.  If not, then have a good day.

Here is a Right wing view.

Here is a Left wign view.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 23, 2008)

you are wrong

are you by any chance a paid union official?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> you are wrong
> 
> are you by any chance a paid union official?


 
:feedtroll


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2008)

Is it just me or are bits being left out of this debate? the bits like 'in my opinion' unions aren't needed or 'in my opinion' you're wrong? it's all statement and that if you opposed to those statements and dare to think something else you're an idiot to say the least. I thought the whole point of being American was that you stood for free speech and tolerance, well there's damn little of that here. Honestly you should step back and take a look at this thread!
Bob and Maunakumu hold different views yet manage to hold a very interesting discussion without calling each other names, I've found myself agreeing with points made by both of them, learning about American unions and views for and against yet still keep my own point of view.
I don't know why political discussions on here end up getting so personal. Nobody has to agree yet some when disagreed with take it as an affront to their manhood!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2008)

Gordon,  I had some of the same thoughts on that one myself. For one, the dialog listed doesn't seem 'real' to me.


I don't think Unions should be eliminated. I think they are over rated, and abused and abusive at times. But, you as a worker with a legitimate concern should be able to go to an employer as an individual or as a group and air that concern, and the employer should hear you. But I have a problem with "seniority rules" and salary caps, and forced donations to political causes I don't support, and being required to not work because someone else has a problem.  As an employer, I have a problem with the idea that I can be physically assaulted by a striker, and required to rehire him after wards. That's just insane!  

Top 10 Best Places to Work

1     Google  - Non Union
2     Quicken Loans - ?
3     Wegmans Food Markets  - Non Union
4     Edward Jones - ?
5     Genentech - ?
6     Cisco Systems - ?
7     Starbucks  - Non Union
8     Qualcomm  - ?
9     Goldman Sachs - ?
10     Methodist Hospital System - ?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2008)

Hmm....considering I do 3 day weekends, have incredible flexibility of schedule, and am not being effected by the "recession", maybe the solution isn't a union job, or a non union job.  It's self employment, living within your means and forgoing a credit based lifestyle...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2008)

We don't have union and non union places of work. Anyone is allowed to join a union or not, up to them. Employment law says you can't employ or not employ people because they are or aren't in a union. Starbucks here had a big demonstration against them last year, they have the lowest paid employees here, paying minimum rate. Their shops were picketed by union members and there's very few people in the UK that will cross a picket line. All workers in UK and Europe have the right to join a union thats UK and European law, if Starbucks break the law they will end up in the European courts whether they care or not. They have the reputation of being bad to work for and tend to employ immigrant labour here.

We don't have seniority rules, salary caps or forced donations. Any and all donations are voted on by the union members are are often turned down. it may make unions here cumbersome in that everything has to go to the members first but while slow it works as democracy should. 
Anyone assualting anyone in the work place will be disciplined, no one will get away with that because they are in a union. The bosses however may get away with it if theres not a union. One of my 'jobs' is investigating assaults ( if any) in the workplace, and the few there have been that have been proved in the MOD have been cases for dismissal which also means loss of pension.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2008)

Interesting.  I've heard mostly good things about SB in the States.  
Here, in more than half the states shops are 100% union or non union. Only 22 states allow a mix (Right to Work states).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2008)

It has abad rep here with enviromentalist because of the water they waste, they leave cold taps running all day. it causes outrage here because we have water shortages quite often.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7654691.stm

this is quite funny though!
http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk/starbucks/index.html


They are known for being bad employers though plus we tend to like our little caffs, Starbucks is seen as an american interloper taking over the place like McDs etc. All the places the same.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 23, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> ...I also give up of expecting any of what I consider common sense out of many of the American posters here on this subject.
> 
> I don't know what's up with you, truly, that you do not see what is skewed with your opinions.



This strain of thought on unions and unionism has a long history in America.  It didn't rise out of a vacuum.  We have a unique history with labor that has led to much of the current day widespread anti-union sentiment, governmentally backed union busting measures, and long term declining union membership.  The anti-union foes really don't have much to worry about.  At current rates of decline, there will only be a handful of unions left in the future.  The Teamsters I'm sure, I don't think they will ever die.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2008)

When I was eight years old, I grabbled a fifty pound snapping turtle by the tail in an attempt to catch the darn thing.  Well, the thing caught me and I soon found out that if I let the thing go, it would immediately turn around and bite me.  So, I held the damned thing as long as I could and screamed my head off for some help.  When my friends came along and saw the trouble I was in, they grabbed some sticks and drove the turtle off.  Finally, I let go.

IMO, this is where I feel our society is at.  The turtle in this case is a Fabian Socialist symbol.  It represents an incremental approach to creating a Utopia.  Except that it should be known that Fabian Socialism isn't a gutter movement and its not creating a gutter Utopia.  The movement began with the upper class elite in England and then was transported over here as the big time New York Finaciers took interest.  They particularly liked Galton's philosophy of Eugenics.  It made their hard fought positions a divine right of their superior nature.  The rest of us were scum and needed to be taught our place.  Taught how to be managed.

Bob, in no way does our society even nominally resemble what was laid out by the Founding Fathers.  The Free Market is a joke that most Americans probably wouldn't even recognize.  Bob, Fabian socialism has morphed into a calculating form of corporate socialism.  The vast piles of capital use government power and the strength of their cartel to keep their piles of money from dissipating by Market Forces.  It's the second law of thermodynamics.  You have to expend energy in order to maintain order.  Otherwise the universe falls into disorder.  Thus, the elite need to expend energy to maintain their positions.  This power is flexed through the might of government.

And it would not be possible in the Jeffersonian Republic that we should have been.  We don't live in that world, however.  We live in this one and we need to deal with problems now.

Bob, the Unions are like grabbing the turtle by the tail. It was a stupid idea to begin with, but now the turtle is poised to turn around and bite you as soon as you let go.  In my opinion, I think all we can do is hope that if we hold it long enough the rest of our friends will come to help.  Even people like Twin Fist are sooner or later going to realize what kind of danger this turtle represents.  

Bob, in a fight, when all you have is a stick, would you throw the stick down and hope for a knife?

The point about Union corruption and collusion is salient.  However, I know that the majority of people in Unions are good people and if called to action, they would do the right things.  Heck, even my old Union president, he was the worst teacher in the world and he used his position to protect his sorry lazy *** in order to get a paycheck, EVEN HE could be reasoned with when push came to shove.  The key lies in getting the information out.  The key lies in the general membership rising up when the time is right and shutting down society if it needs to come to that.  The few corrupt unions bosses won't be able to stand in the way of that.

We are too well armed and information is too freely available for hope to be completely lost.  In my opinion, Unions represent a method that we can use to quickly organize if need be.  My guess is that we'll continue to disagree on this issue, but now the difference is a matter of faith.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 23, 2008)

Cheers, *EH*.  

My outburst in the early hours was out of line, as I do know that the history of the Unions in America has been quite different from the one over here and thus the feelings about them run differently too.  

I failed to take that into account when my keyboard 'vent' blew off in response to what I saw, through a cloud of emotion, as morally reprehensible views .

Sometimes even the delay of having a keyboard in the way isn't enough to stop us putting our feet in our mouths :lol:.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> no gordon, i do not think it is a broad brush.
> 
> IMO, no one NEEDS a union. People have the choice to work there, or not.
> 
> ...



So, by using your own logic as gathered from many of your postings, your mom should have just quit and gotten another job.  If something would have happened to you as a result of getting that other job, well, that would just be survival of the fittest as you said.  I don't know what she would be complaining about getting nearly 25% strike pay.  It's more than us greedy evil blood sucking UAW guys get nowadays, and we make $500,739.92 per hour plus shift premiums and get double time for our 16 coffee breaks, 32 individual 25 hr lunch breaks, 14 hr mid afternoon nap time, and company paid massuses per day.

I still contend you have stated pure opinion, inacurate information, and flat out lies.


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> no




Vewwwwwwwwwwy angry this Neocon is....


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> When i was old enough to understand what the union was doing to her, i told her to quit, she said simply, "I was a single woman with a child to raise, i didnt have the luxury of being picky"
> 
> couldnt argue with that
> 
> I HATE unions, I hate the lazy worthless people that use them to hold onto a job that they couldnt keep otherwise, I hate the cost increases that come from greedy unions.I hate the greedy unions destroyed the american steel industry and they are well on thier way to doing the same with the american auto industry.



Tell us how you really feel


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 23, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Gordon,  I had some of the same thoughts on that one myself. For one, the dialog listed doesn't seem 'real' to me.
> 
> 
> I don't think Unions should be eliminated. I think they are over rated, and abused and abusive at times. But, you as a worker with a legitimate concern should be able to go to an employer as an individual or as a group and air that concern, and the employer should hear you. But I have a problem with "seniority rules" and salary caps, and forced donations to political causes I don't support, and being required to not work because someone else has a problem.  As an employer, I have a problem with the idea that I can be physically assaulted by a striker, and required to rehire him after wards. That's just insane!



Bob,

Seniority is no fun, if you're the guy who has been most recently hired. I've been there, and I won't deny that for an instant. 

When you refer to "forced donations," are you talking about unions donating money to causes/parties, or union members being forced to? I've experienced nothing like the latter; however, the former is what goes on anyway. If you work for a large employer, it's very likely that your company is financing campaigns with the profits that you helped to make. What can be done about that?

As for being assaulted by an employee you have to bring back, well, presumably you can charge that person with assault. There was a strike of Toronto Star newspaper employees several years ago in which some of the striking workers vandalized the company property. The union tried to get them off the hook, but the newspaper bosses wouldn't go for it. I don't blame them.

Similarly, we had a city-wide walkout of union workers (called the Metro Toronto Day of Action) over a decade ago over sweeping Provincial legislation. What can I say? Some of us are better behaved than others. Most pickets were peaceful, informational events. Some workers and others vented their anger by destroying property. 

Mind you, I have seen greater violence and vandalism in my city when a sports team wins or loses a major event.  I happened to be tending bar in the early eighties, when the Toronto Argonauts won the CFL's Grey Cup, and the so-called fans tore the city apart.

You do realized that some people are dicks, regardless of their affiliation?



> Top 10 Best Places to Work
> 
> 1     Google  - Non Union
> 2     Quicken Loans - ?
> ...



Where did this come from? I don't want to work for any of these guys.


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> you are wrong
> 
> are you by any chance a paid union official?



You're not totally wrong on this but you are a wee bit belligerent


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2008)

The American expression as used in TFs post...'people suck' makes me laugh, it's so rude and it must be a good thing that people do!

who needs a union? these people do...
http://www.waronwant.org/Strengthening20sweatshop20workers2720rights20in20El20Salvador+13870.twl


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Bob,
> 
> Seniority is no fun, if you're the guy who has been most recently hired. I've been there, and I won't deny that for an instant.
> 
> ...


Gordon,
  Trust me, I know one doesn't need a union card to be an ***.  I've worked at enough nonunion shops to know ***'s are a special group that really get around. LOL!

The list was from a Top 100 employers listing I posted a bit back.  
Wegmans from everything I've heard, is a top notch company, doing a significant amount of "greening" in their processes and products, food quality is excellent. They cut prices on a number of products recently, and are absorbing the costs. Their employees are probably some of the friendliest, and most cheerful that I've encountered.  I can't recall the last "zombie" I've run into.   I've heard similar things about Starbucks in the states, and I'll hit them a dozen times a month, rarely finding sour pusses behind the counter.


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 23, 2008)

Dungeon, 
I understand that you are a slave to your union, and most likely couldnt keep a job if it wasnt for said union, so I expect you to take up for them.

But dont call me a liar.

Thats all I am gonna say about that. Dont do it.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2008)

Good grief, we don't want friendly and cheerful! We like grumpy and silent, we don't want to be wished 'have a nice day' it makes us want to smack the persons face. This is how business should be conducted and customers treated.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RCfk7u9E89c&feature=related


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 23, 2008)

*giggle*

see you all  in a couple of days

Merry Christmas people


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 23, 2008)

I just feel like listening to Pete Seeger right now. Warning: Songs of solidarity ahead.











Bonus track. Arlo Guthrie and Sarah Lee Guthrie sing _Union Maid_.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t59oL00nyw


----------



## zeeberex (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Dungeon,
> I understand that you are a slave to your union, and most likely couldnt keep a job if it wasnt for said union, so I expect you to take up for them.
> 
> But dont call me a liar.
> ...



Not a liar, just a belligerant blast of hot air. What happens if someone does call you a liar, do you drive to their house and beat them up?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2008)

*Moderator Note:*
_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our rules if you need refreshing. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Dungeon,
> I understand that you are a slave to your union, and most likely couldnt keep a job if it wasnt for said union, so I expect you to take up for them.
> 
> But dont call me a liar.
> ...



I call it as I see it Twin Fist.


----------



## MJS (Dec 23, 2008)

*Admin Note:*

*Apparently the last 2 notes have gone un-noticed.  Consider this the last one.  Stop the personal attacks and shots at each other.  Use the ignore feature and return to the topic at hand before the thread is locked and people lose their access to the study.*

*Mike Slosek*
*MT Asst. Admin*


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 24, 2008)

Hey guys.  Take some time off and have a Merry Christmas.  Lets not get this thread locked.  There's a lot of good information in this thread!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 24, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Hey guys. Take some time off and have a Merry Christmas. Lets not get this thread locked. There's a lot of good information in this thread!


 

Good idea, all the Christmas films are on the television now ( the good ones the kids films lol) so time to sit back and relax...just watched Sky High....good film but sometime you are going to have to explain to me all these strange customs American High schools have! Homecoming? 
Happy Holiday!


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 24, 2008)

Merry Christmas!


----------

