Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 “accept” and pay for unwanted union representation in non-Right to Work states.

As the late Senator John L. McClellan (D-Ark.) said, “Compulsory unionism and corruption go hand in hand.”


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

 

[theletch1]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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????