UAW Has Ford in its Sights

[tbone]

UAW Has Ford in its Sights

"If they don't restore everything [union workers] gave up, the membership is going to knock it down. The bonuses that were just announced are just ridiculous."
-- Bill Johnson, leader of the United Auto Workers Local 900 at the Ford Focus plant in Wayne, Mich., talking to UPI.

The United Auto Workers now has an ownership stake in two of America’s Big Three automakers, and at union’s meeting in Detroit this week to discuss the pending expiration of the industry-wide contract there is little love being heard for the third member. Ford’s Blue Oval is looking more like a bull’s-eye these days.
The Obama administration inserted no-strike clauses into the labor contracts of GM and Chrysler during the 2009 government takeover and reorganization of the bankrupt carmakers. As part of the bailout package, the unions agreed not to go on strike against the companies when the current contract expires.
But since Ford remained an independent company, it has no such protection.
All three automakers won considerable concessions from the unions when the current contract was negotiated three years ago – shifting bonus payments to cover reducing the starting wage for new workers and freezing wages at the $28-per-hour average for existing employees.
Under those terms and with a series of sales successes like its new Explorer, Ford has roared back to profitability. Despite carrying massive debt that its competitors saw wiped out as part of the Obama-UAW deal, Ford has been a marked success story.
The union, though, is moving this week toward the end of all of the givebacks in the previous contract and the restoration of the wages and benefits deemed unaffordable before. Citing executive pay and growing profits, labor leaders are particularly angry at Ford’s success.
This sets up some interesting questions: Can a union that partially owns two car companies shut down a competitor without violating anti-trust laws? Can a federal government that is in partnership with the union in owning two car companies be trusted to resolve a dispute at a competitor’s operations?
And the biggest question of all: can Ford endure a strike without following its competitors into bankruptcy and federal control?


When will the unions ever learn their lesson and leave a profitable, job producing company alone? They won't be happy until Ford is ruined too and under their thumb. Unbelievable.

[Kodimar]

If Ford was smart they would start automating everything.

It'll probably be another 100 years before robots can strike.

[sailsmen]

The best thing that happened to the UAW was the Nationalization of GM and Chrysler.

The UAW will try to get Ford Nationalized.

[illwood]

The best thing that happened to the UAW was the Nationalization of GM and Chrysler.

The UAW will try to get Ford Nationalized.

"Nationalizing" . . .

I guess that's one way of putting it.


I'm not against unions as a way to protect abuse of workers and unfair pay, but I'm against unions that use their muscle to get unrealistic benefits and the union members that abuse the system.

[Fosters]

...And people blame the businesses that move their operations overseas...

Mullaly should hire Gov Chris Christie to negotiate with the unions.

[sailsmen]

From Wikki -"Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the process of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state.
The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of 'state socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people or working class to allow for rational allocation of output, consolidation of resources, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of distributing output to benefit the public at large, and a means for providing public finance."

[sailsmen]

...And people blame the businesses that move their operations overseas...

Mullaly should hire Gov Chris Christie to negotiate with the unions.

The blame falls with the managers who were solely interested in their short term stock options and what affect a strike would have. Good Management would have not signed off on what the UAW asked for.

[babbage]

Unions should be illegal in this day and age. If you are good -- prove it.

[BizTerp]

If Ford was smart they would start automating everything.

It'll probably be another 100 years before robots can strike.

Didn't you see Terminator? Not only can robots strike, they can exterminate the entire human race.

[Mr. Man]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

[babbage]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.


Executives are paid to perform - if they don't they get canned.

Union workers are the opposite. (overpaid and impossible to fire)

If you are good prove it. (Executives can - UAW doesn't have to)

[PonyUP]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

However in this instance, and I may be wrong, the union gave up nothing for Ford. Ford did not ask, want, or receive a bail out, and now that they can get a cush deal with GM and Chrysler, ofcourse they'll try and put the screws to Ford.

There have been times were unions were a necessity, especially to protect fair pay and labor rights. But with the litigious society we live in today, and the politically correct world, there are plenty of aveneues to pursue workers rights and Fair pay, which makes unions just another racket. They collect your money as "dues" and then occassionally launch a strike for what? More Money.

Imagine being a small business owner, say in a lumber store, and you want to start delivering throughout the state to increase your footprint. So you hire a driver, offering $14/hr plus vehicle expenses.

Oh but wait, you have to get a teamster driver which means you now need to sign a union contract. And in that contract it will require you to have a driver, and a ride along supervisor. Per their contract, they will unload the truck, but will move the lumber no where but the dock. If it is home delivery it will ahve to be left at the curb. Of course now you'll need to hire a laborer to move the lumber off the dock, and since it's a union dock you will have to pay an 8 hr minimum.

Oh and by the way, the driver you hired at $14, well the union is going to take care of his benefits (an additional 36%) and his pension and vacation (an additional 7%) and that driver will now cost $23 hr. Oh, you need him to start at 6am? well for any hours worked between 12a and 8a, it's double time, so for the first 2 hours, gotta pay him $46/hr, and don't forget about his ride along supervisor, as a Supervisor, he makes $3 mor an hour.

And now, as a small business owner, you can't afford delivery, making it more difficult to grow your business.

PS, Actual situation listed above, some things have been changed to protect the innocent, but I lived a situation very similar.

Unions did a lot of good back in the day, but their day of being good mostly is done. Lone exception might be in construction in order to protect fair bid practices.

[tbone]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

Do you know what bonuses Ford is currently giving out that are so "reprehensible"?

[CBT]

Didn't you see Terminator? Not only can robots strike, they can exterminate the entire human race.
Buwahahahahahahahahaha!!! Nice!

[Pops]

They also paid out 5,000 to each union line worker!

[CBT]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

So because a company is successful, the unions need to reach into that companys pockets and get more money for the "workers"?

[Paul T. Casey]

The blame falls with the managers who were solely interested in their short term stock options and what affect a strike would have. Good Management would have not signed off on what the UAW asked for.

Bingo!! Like 25 years ago. When times were good was the time for managemnt to say no. Now, we get to bail them out of their mess. I have no beef with Ford paying out whatever they want to whomever they choose. They didn't take my money "un-voluntarily."

[Pops]

So because a company is successful, the unions need to reach into that companys pockets and get more money for the "workers"?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)

[MOTOWN]

If Ford was smart they would start automating everything.

It'll probably be another 100 years before robots can strike.


robots dont buy cars! people do;), terrible idea

[SC Cheesehead]

robots dont buy cars! people do;), terrible idea

What's using robots to build cars got to do with people buying cars? :confused:

[tbone]

Bingo!! Like 25 years ago. When times were good was the time for managemnt to say no. Now, we get to bail them out of their mess. I have no beef with Ford paying out whatever they want to whomever they choose. They didn't take my money "un-voluntarily."


Management had no choice but to agree.

[tbone]

They also paid out 5,000 to each union line worker!

And it wasn't "enough".

[tbone]

They'll ruin Ford too. Just give them time.

[Pops]

And it wasn't "enough".

You got it! ;)

[MOTOWN]

What's using robots to build cars got to do with people buying cars? :confused:

its got everything to with it! if the big three were to go totaly automated, michigan would die, jobs would be lost, and that fewer people to buy the product in an already failing economy

[Pops]

its got everything to with it! if the big three were to go totaly automated, michigan would die, jobs would be lost, and that fewer people to buy the product in an already failing economy

If we don't not automate the rest of the world will. Michigan needs to get the factories to build the automation!

[MOTOWN]

now thats a good thing!, anytime we can bring jobs to michigan

[Pops]

I live in South Haven on the other side of the state from you. Industry has left state and it is hurting all of us. Lets hope we can find new things to replace it!:beer:

[Fosters]

Unions should be illegal in this day and age. If you are good -- prove it.

This. I don't need anyone to negotiate my salary for me. I'll negotiate it myself, and if I don't like it, I'll find someone else to work for. Too bad majority union workers would love to stop working and go whine in a picket line instead... :shake:

[Fosters]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

So what's stopping each worker from becoming one of those executives?

[Pops]

So what's stopping each worker from becoming one of those executives?

Great question! :beer:

[MOTOWN]

I live in South Haven on the other side of the state from you. Industry has left state and it is hurting all of us. Lets hope we can find new things to replace it!:beer:
i totaly agree with you on that note! lets hope so:beer:

[CBT]

Unions won't go away, there is too much money to be made. And ponder this: If they actually got everything they wanted, there would be no need for unions anymore. That would mean no fat paychecks to the union big-wigs. So how hard do you think they are actually fighting for the common worker? If you think they are actually going to try and achieve perfect harmony and put themselves out of a job, you are nuts.

[Pops]

Unions won't go away, there is too much money to be made. And ponder this: If they actually got everything they wanted, there would be no need for unions anymore. That would mean no fat paychecks to the union big-wigs. So how hard do you think they are actually fighting for the common worker? If you think they are actually going to try and achieve perfect harmony and put themselves out of a job, you are nuts.

:beer: :beer: :beer: :bows: :bows:

[SC Cheesehead]

its got everything to with it! if the big three were to go totaly automated, michigan would die, jobs would be lost, and that fewer people to buy the product in an already failing economy


If we don't not automate the rest of the world will. Michigan needs to get the factories to build the automation!

The traditional manufacturing base in the Midwest is gone, never to return; need to find something to replace it rather than try to bring it back.

Also, keep in mind that someone is needed to install, program, and maintain the robots. As Pops noted, the rest of the world is automating, if we want to compete, we need to keep up.

[Fosters]

The traditional manufacturing base in the Midwest is gone, never to return; need to find something to replace it rather than try to bring it back.

Also, keep in mind that someone is needed to install, program, and maintain the robots. As Pops noted, the rest of the world is automating, if we want to compete, we need to keep up.

Yeah, but the unions are all about making sure all the typewriter assembly workers don't get fired and get "fair" wages... so they can get their dues. ;)

[LIGHTNIN1]

Yeah, but the unions are all about making sure all the typewriter assembly workers don't get fired and get "fair" wages... so they can get their dues. ;)

It is all about the union leaders perks. They would not do it just for "FAIR WAGES". Fair wages has the smell of Barney Frank and "AFFORDABLE HOUSING".

[FordNut]

They also paid out 5,000 to each union line worker!

That ain't enough for the greedy bastidges..

[MOTOWN]

The traditional manufacturing base in the Midwest is gone, never to return; need to find something to replace it rather than try to bring it back.

Also, keep in mind that someone is needed to install, program, and maintain the robots. As Pops noted, the rest of the world is automating, if we want to compete, we need to keep up.

if were to "keep up" then we need to stop exporting every job/company over seas, and do away with nafta!

we need to put this country first

[sailsmen]

Unions are a business just like any other business. Their mission is to increase power and profits just like any other business.

It would be interesting if it were legal for Employers to form a union and collectively bargain with employees! The employers union would be called EU. This EU would require by law that all employers have their membership dues deducted from their sales. After all the employers are benefiting from the collective bargaining process. This EU could also own banks to deposit the dues, insurance companies to insure the benefits, mutual funds to invest the pensions, invest the pensions in country clubs, casinos, etc.

The EU could call a strike and shut down all the busineses. The EU could form picket lines in front of the employess houses and the employees union hall.:banana2:

[Fosters]

It is all about the union leaders perks. They would not do it just for "FAIR WAGES". Fair wages has the smell of Barney Frank and "AFFORDABLE HOUSING".

:D

If the states took on the public sector unions; and corporations start moving operations to right to work states, I have a feeling democrats would be toast for a looong period of time...

[Joe Walsh]

Unions are a business just like any other business. Their mission is to increase power and profits just like any other business.

It would be interesting if it were legal for Employers to form a union and collectively bargain with employees! The employers union would be called EU. This EU would require by law that all employers have their membership dues deducted from their sales. After all the employers are benefiting from the collective bargaining process. This EU could also own banks to deposit the dues, insurance companies to insure the benefits, mutual funds to invest the pensions, invest the pensions in country clubs, casinos, etc.

The EU could call a strike and shut down all the busineses. The EU could form picket lines in front of the employess houses and the employees union hall.:banana2:

BINGO!

The Union leaders make a very nice living...much, much more then their "overworked and underpayed" rank and file.

[SpartaPerformance]

Unions should be illegal in this day and age. If you are good -- prove it.


Executives are paid to perform - if they don't they get canned.

Union workers are the opposite. (overpaid and impossible to fire)

If you are good prove it. (Executives can - UAW doesn't have to)


Exactly! There are tons of labor laws for hourly workers in all towns, cities, states etc.... Unions are no longer needed. We're not unionized, workers show up at 8 when they're supposed to ready to work, they get lunch break from 12-1 and they go home at 5. They work hard and earn money without being told twice or back talk, if they need to leave early they make sure that what they need to get done is done and we've been informed in advance we don't break their balls. It's called being a responsible person for your own actions. That is what America was founded on, not ***** holding unions and big government nannies. My $0.02

[J-MAN]

Unions are a business just like any other business. Their mission is to increase power and profits just like any other business.

It would be interesting if it were legal for Employers to form a union and collectively bargain with employees! The employers union would be called EU. This EU would require by law that all employers have their membership dues deducted from their sales. After all the employers are benefiting from the collective bargaining process. This EU could also own banks to deposit the dues, insurance companies to insure the benefits, mutual funds to invest the pensions, invest the pensions in country clubs, casinos, etc.

The EU could call a strike and shut down all the busineses. The EU could form picket lines in front of the employess houses and the employees union hall.:banana2:

Employers have always been able to form a union of sorts for collective bargaining purposes it's called Multi-Employer Bargaining. All these employers have something in common generally trade specific and competitors to each other along with a common union representing the employees at their locations. At it's best it stabilizes wages and benefit costs at all represented locations so bidding on projects is on a level playing field. Usually only works in the best of times. As things worsen, it started in the early '90's for the automotive tooling industry, these Multi-Employer groups break up with each having the belief that they can get the best contract on their own.

[CBT]

if were to "keep up" then we need to stop exporting every job/company over seas, and do away with nafta!

we need to put this country first

In order to catch up to and compete with China, we would have to do three things:
1. Do away with the EPA.
2. Do away with unions.
3. Everyone take a giant pay cut.

Since those are not going to happen, all we need is three revolutionary inventions to be discovered at once that are the size and scope of the inventing of the internet to create hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the U.S.

Yeah, I don't see either of these happening. Anyone else? Cause that's all I got.

[BUCKWHEAT]

now thats a good thing!, anytime we can bring jobs to michigan

Only state in the nation to lose population over the last 10 years? Michigan.
Percent of students graduating from MSU and U of M that leave the state for a job? About 50%
You have had plenty of time to bring jobs to Michigan & you didn't. What makes you think it should, can, will start now? Michigan contunues to do what it always did and now expects to get something different? Good luck with that!

So what do you think of the Governor of Michigan? Let's criticize him for thinking about right-to-work. That wouldn't create any jobs in Michigan...ya think?

[tbone]

In order to catch up to and compete with China, we would have to do three things:
1. Do away with the EPA.
2. Do away with unions.
3. Everyone take a giant pay cut.

Since those are not going to happen, all we need is three revolutionary inventions to be discovered at once that are the size and scope of the inventing of the internet to create hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the U.S.

Yeah, I don't see either of these happening. Anyone else? Cause that's all I got.

If we perfect nano technology and keep the technology secret the world would be our oyster......

[tbone]

We also have a lot of oil we could sell.......a LOT!!!!

[sailsmen]

Employers have always been able to form a union of sorts for collective bargaining purposes it's called Multi-Employer Bargaining. All these employers have something in common generally trade specific and competitors to each other along with a common union representing the employees at their locations. At it's best it stabilizes wages and benefit costs at all represented locations so bidding on projects is on a level playing field. Usually only works in the best of times. As things worsen, it started in the early '90's for the automotive tooling industry, these Multi-Employer groups break up with each having the belief that they can get the best contract on their own.

It is only legal to bargain with a union. It is still illegal for Employers to form a Union to bargain with employees.

[Fosters]

In order to catch up to and compete with China, we would have to do three things:
1. Do away with the EPA.
2. Do away with unions.
3. Everyone take a giant pay cut.

Since those are not going to happen, all we need is three revolutionary inventions to be discovered at once that are the size and scope of the inventing of the internet to create hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the U.S.

Yeah, I don't see either of these happening. Anyone else? Cause that's all I got.

Just because we won't like the 3rd, doesn't mean doing the first two won't put us a LOT closer to being competitive... And I can guarantee people will buy american well made products over chinese junk if the price difference isn't as astronomical as it is now. And a lot more businesses would prefer to do their operations here just for the headaches the outsourcing of jobs provides...

I'd also favor putting limits/tariffs on imports from countries that limit or place tariff our exports. Level the playing field...

[babbage]

Detroit could probably use another Eminem boost following Tuesday's news that it lost 25% of its residents from 2000 to 2010.

You may remember the catchy Chrysler ad during January's Super Bowl.
To the sounds of a jangly guitar, the rapper drives through the city's gritty streets, telling the viewer, "This is the Motor City and this is what we do."
The spot ends with "Imported From Detroit," a message that may have a new meaning, given the latest census numbers.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Detroit saw its population drop from 951,270 in 2000 to 713,777 last year -- its lowest since the 1910 census.
That tells only part of a classic rise and fall of a city that lost residents to the suburbs and the dramatic decline of the auto industry.
Buoyed by industrialization and Henry Ford and other entrepreneurs, Detroit's population skyrocketed at the dawn of the 20th century.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/mosaic/bttn_close.gif
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2010/09/29/vbs.palladium.detroit.vbs.640x 360.jpg

Detroit shatters stereotypes of blight
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/mosaic/bttn_close.gif
http://www.cnn.com/video/bestoftv/2011/02/22/exp.nr.detroit.schools.cnn.640 x360.jpg

60 kids per class in Detroit schools
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/mosaic/bttn_close.gif
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2010/08/05/johns.motown.makeover.cnn.640x 360.jpg



Home to 285,704 people in 1900, the Michigan city enjoyed a peak of 1.85 million residents in 1950. Detroit once was the fourth-largest city in the country.
Tuesday's news was a double blow to Michigan, which learned in December it was the only state to have a cumulative population loss in the decade.
The state's population fell 0.6% -- from 9.94 million to 9.89 million -- costing the state yet another congressional district. At its peak, after the 1960 census, Michigan had 19 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The state's Capitol Hill clout has eroded, one or two seats a decade, since 1980. Now, it's down to just 14.
Detroit leaders said Tuesday the census figures were not accurate.
"I don't believe it will stand up" to the city's planned challenge, said Mayor Dave Bing, saying the census has a history of undercounting residents in large cities.
"We are in a fiscal crisis and we have to fight for every dollar," Bing said.
If another 40,000 residents are verified, Detroit would meet the 750,000 threshold for ideal federal and state funding, Bing said.
Detroit City Council President Charles Pugh told CNN affiliate WIDV the census figure is about 100,000 short.
"That's clearly less money from the state and clearly less money from the government if we fall below certain thresholds," Pugh said.
Bing told reporters he is committed to help create new jobs and reduce crime.
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder said "figures clearly show how crucial it is to reinvent Michigan."
"We cannot cling to the old ways of doing business," Snyder said in a statement Tuesday. "Michigan will not succeed if Detroit and other major cities don't succeed.
"Losing our best and brightest young adults to other states, or failing to rejuvenate our urban areas, are not acceptable options," Snyder continued. "Fundamental change is needed and we will achieve that by working together with relentless positive action."




Go Unions Go - Kill Detroit even faster! Go Democrats - Detroit has been run into the ground by the Dems for what the last 20 years? And all the mayor seems to be concerned about is: Welfare! (federal and state aid) I feel really sad for the kids and teachers (60:1)

[MOTOWN]

Only state in the nation to lose population over the last 10 years? Michigan.
Percent of students graduating from MSU and U of M that leave the state for a job? About 50%
You have had plenty of time to bring jobs to Michigan & you didn't. What makes you think it should, can, will start now? Michigan contunues to do what it always did and now expects to get something different? Good luck with that!

So what do you think of the Governor of Michigan? Let's criticize him for thinking about right-to-work. That wouldn't create any jobs in Michigan...ya think?

last time i checked detroit is one of many cities in michigan, it does not represent the state as a whole, so you can blab on about detroit, im more concerned with the state as a whole and what needs to be done to get this country on the right track, and finger pointing aint it
and this u of m grad is still in michigan!

[tbone]

last time i checked detroit is one of many cities in michigan, it does not represent the state as a whole, so you can blab on about detroit, im more concerned with the state as a whole and what needs to be done to get this country on the right track, and finger pointing aint it
and this u of m grad is still in michigan!

Well, the point is that Detroit has been run by Democrats and unions for a long time now and the results speak for themselves. Self reliance and pro-business strategies work, handouts and excessive union pay and benefits do not.

[BODYMAN]

Are Goverment is so corrupt it is obvious they dont like the fact Ford is not under there control. UAW will never learn it is human greed. As for Detroit my brother took a job there (good pay) he couldnt stand it quit and moved,As Buckwheat stated only state in the union to have a decreased population besides cars & car parts what do they make there?

[BODYMAN]

Well, the point is that Detroit has been run by Democrats and unions for a long time now and the results speak for themselves. Self reliance and pro-business strategies work, handouts and excessive union pay and benefits do not.

Couldnt say it better:up:

[Mr. Man]

However in this instance, and I may be wrong, the union gave up nothing for Ford. Ford did not ask, want, or receive a bail out, and now that they can get a cush deal with GM and Chrysler, of course they'll try and put the screws to Ford.
It said in the article that all three unions gave concessions 3 years ago when negotiating the current contract. I just thought if all is going well with Ford maybe Ford should give some of those concessions back
There have been times were unions were a necessity, especially to protect fair pay and labor rights. But with the litigious society we live in today, and the politically correct world, there are plenty of avenues to pursue workers rights and Fair pay, which makes unions just another racket. They collect your money as "dues" and then occasionally launch a strike for what? More Money.

Imagine being a small business owner, say in a lumber store, and you want to start delivering throughout the state to increase your footprint. So you hire a driver, offering $14/hr plus vehicle expenses.

Oh but wait, you have to get a teamster driver which means you now need to sign a union contract. And in that contract it will require you to have a driver, and a ride along supervisor. Per their contract, they will unload the truck, but will move the lumber no where but the dock. If it is home delivery it will have to be left at the curb. Of course now you'll need to hire a laborer to move the lumber off the dock, and since it's a union dock you will have to pay an 8 hr minimum.

Oh and by the way, the driver you hired at $14, well the union is going to take care of his benefits (an additional 36%) and his pension and vacation (an additional 7%) and that driver will now cost $23 hr. Oh, you need him to start at 6am? well for any hours worked between 12a and 8a, it's double time, so for the first 2 hours, gotta pay him $46/hr, and don't forget about his ride along supervisor, as a Supervisor, he makes $3 mor an hour.

And now, as a small business owner, you can't afford delivery, making it more difficult to grow your business.
Ford is not a small business so your analogy here is pointless. Ford agreed to the UAW's terms so now they need to either live up to them or renegotiate for terms that are more suitable
PS, Actual situation listed above, some things have been changed to protect the innocent, but I lived a situation very similar.

Unions did a lot of good back in the day, but their day of being good mostly is done. Lone exception might be in construction in order to protect fair bid practices.


Do you know what bonuses Ford is currently giving out that are so "reprehensible"?
All bonuses are reprehensible except the Christmas bonus and that should equal a percentage of the persons salary. Bonuses should not exceed a persons salary which in many cases happens in large publicly held companies.


So because a company is successful, the unions need to reach into that companies pockets and get more money for the "workers"?
If the company is very successful then as a shareholder I want a larger share of the pie. I personally don't think executives or workers deserve bonuses. They are hired to do a job if they are successful they get to keep their salary if not then they can look for work elsewhere.


So what's stopping each worker from becoming one of those executives?
Most likely are very expensive Harvard education


Executives are paid to perform - if they don't they get canned.
Yeah right that's why all three auto makers were in the toilet for years, and two of them went belly up.

Union workers are the opposite. (overpaid and impossible to fire)
True

If you are good prove it. (Executives can - UAW doesn't have to)
We'll have to wait and see about this one. Everybody is on their best behavior now but let's see if they can sustain it

[MOTOWN]

as for the uaw thats something that ford, and its membership will have to work out, before getting into law enforcement i worked for general motors for seven years, it wasnt for me,and i didnt agree 100% with the union, but i dont knock those that choose to stay.

[guspech750]

When I started at my current job 16 years ago. I told my boss/majority owner that I wanted to learn everything about drilling and be the best there is. Well over the first 6 years I did all that and then some. I learned everything and took all sorts of hazmat classes and training classes, site specific classes water well license from different states yad yada yada. Well as I was learning all and quickly became the most experinced driller. There were and still are a some drillers at our company that have been there 20+ years and still don't know or have a quarter of the knowledge or experince I have. And I gained that in my first 6 years. Well when we were nonunion. I know for a fact I was taken advantage of and payed way less than the guys who where there for 20+ years and decided to learn nothing. I was so upset for so very long. But i also love my job. For so long I was way underpayed for all I had learned as compared to the lazy Sob's who just don't care. Well. Our owners made us join the Operating Engineers union. We as employees didn't want to but we had to. But in the back of my head I was finally going to get what I had worked so long and hard for (that's what she said). A pay raise. Now I hear so many people flap their jaws that hard work and knowledge will get you a good salary. I'm here to tell you Bllsht!! I worked hard, took all the classes, did and still do all the difficult drilling jobs. Where others didn't but yet made way more than me. I was way underpayed for what I knew how to do when we were nonunion. I don't agree with all the union propaganda but I am sure glad I am finally being payed a good wage for all I learned and continue to learn and do. Sure it sucks that those same turds are making the same as I am for doing/knowing a quarter of what I know and do. But management could have gotten rid of them before we were union. I'm rambling. I could go on and on. Blah blah blah. Unions still have their place. My union Operating Engineers Local 150 have an amazing training facility. I can go in there and learn diesel mechanics, welding, classes and certifications of all kinds , cdl license, soil testing, and all earth moving equipment, road building equipment and all cranes including the tower cranes. I would not have that oportunity if I was not in the union. Lots of unions are way to greedy and such. Our union seams to be pretty fair.

All I am saying is I finally have been given a good wage and benifets for a job I love, and worked so hard and learned so much. And I thank the union for that.

[justbob]

I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.
Agreed. They want what they gave up. Wouldn't anyone?


Executives are paid to perform - if they don't they get canned.

Union workers are the opposite. (overpaid and impossible to fire)
Apparantly you have never worked construction???
If you are good prove it. (Executives can - UAW doesn't have to)
I do. Daily... It takes NOTHING to get canned being a union plumber.

This. I don't need anyone to negotiate my salary for me. I'll negotiate it myself, and if I don't like it, I'll find someone else to work for. Too bad majority union workers would love to stop working and go whine in a picket line instead... :shake:
Really? That is one ignorant statement right there:rolleyes: Hmm. Work and make money or picket for $10 a day (only when there is money in the picket fund ofcourse). You must not be family man?



Exactly! There are tons of labor laws for hourly workers in all towns, cities, states etc.... Unions are no longer needed. We're not unionized, workers show up at 8 when they're supposed to ready to work, they get lunch break from 12-1 and they go home at 5. They work hard and earn money without being told twice or back talk, if they need to leave early they make sure that what they need to get done is done and we've been informed in advance we don't break their balls. It's called being a responsible person for your own actions. That is what America was founded on, not ***** holding unions and big government nannies. My $0.02

Do you happen to know just how those laws were put into force? Unions! Look up the history, you can thank unions for every one of the laws put into place today and the future. But your right, its done now, all is good, so lets get rid of the unions! That would create possibly the worst economy balance of all time and hardships equall to the 20's. Do you actually think that your wages would be untouched into the future? Unions set the scale for higher end job pay and benefits, that isn't a crime. Without that scale, were would you be now? Surely nowhere close to what you make. (sorry Sparta, this isn't actually directed at you personally)


as for the uaw thats something that ford, and its membership will have to work out, before getting into law enforcement i worked for general motors for seven years, it wasnt for me,and i didnt agree 100% with the union, but i dont knock those that choose to stay.
It's not for everyone. I have worked on both sides of the fence and let me tell you being union is harder than I ever imagined! You now make 3 times more than a nonunion employee and you best know how to come up with 24 hrs of work in an 8 hr period!! There is no room for BS, you stink of it your out. Union break?? WTF is that???? Please, someone explain to me just what that is exactly. Never seen one myself?

Some of you should either know your facts before you call every union member some of the names that I read here or try and keep up to me in the field. No two unions operate the same way. Thanks for the insults everyone, it speaks volumes.

[MOTOWN]

very well said! justbob

[Fosters]

Most likely are very expensive Harvard education


You realize Allan Mullaly graduated from University of Kansas first, right? So much for your theory...



Really? That is one ignorant statement right there:rolleyes: Hmm. Work and make money or picket for $10 a day (only when there is money in the picket fund ofcourse). You must not be family man?


Ignorant? Well excuse me, I'm too busy to give a flying **** about some lazy asses not willing to do something about their situation and better themselves, other than cry and moan about how unfair the world is to them. Life is not fair, get used to it. I've never been on strike. If I don't show up to work one day because I don't like it, I'm probably gonna get fired. If union workers go on strike and stop working, they usually have to get a raise in the end, because it's illegal to fire them.

[MrBluGruv]

Now I hear so many people flap their jaws that hard work and knowledge will get you a good salary. I'm here to tell you Bllsht!!

I learned early on that that was a bunch of nonsense. Life is less about what you know and more about who you know and more specifically how you play your hand/play the field.

[FordNut]

Since we're talking about unions...

I really don't like the public workers unions being able to negotiate for so much better benefits than I will ever have, and me as a taxpayer who will have to pay for those benefits not having any say in their compensation. I'm saving for my retirement on my own and having to pay for theirs too. Federal, State, and Local public workers should have the same opportunities as the majority of taxpayers. If 401k is good enough for us, it should be ok for them too.

[CBT]

Since we're talking about unions...

I really don't like the public workers unions being able to negotiate for so much better benefits than I will ever have, and me as a taxpayer who will have to pay for those benefits not having any say in their compensation. I'm saving for my retirement on my own and having to pay for theirs too. Federal, State, and Local public workers should have the same opportunities as the majority of taxpayers. If 401k is good enough for us, it should be ok for them too.

I tend to agree with this, with the exception of cops and firemen, and here's why:
1.) I will always get to speak to a human when I call, ALWAYS.
2.) I do not have to stand in line, and when I get to the front of the line, deal with an *******.
3.) If I need the service they provide, response is instant.

I cannot say that about any other public servant. Possibly animal control. I'm sure if you called and said a tiger was taking a dump in your petunia patch, they would show up fairly quick. I would say EMT's but here they are double duty; half the day you ride the firetruck, the other half you ride the amberlamps.

[J-MAN]

It is only legal to bargain with a union. It is still illegal for Employers to form a Union to bargain with employees.

Would you please clarify and give an example? I'm curious and willing to learn.
I've seen the example I gave work and it's not illegal.

[sailsmen]

"Charles W. Baird
Unions and Antitrust: Governmental Hypocrisy
When it Comes to Antitrust, Courts Routinely Ignore the Rule of Law
February 2000 • Volume: 50 • Issue: 2 • Print This Post • 0 comments Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act states that “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce . . . is hereby declared to be illegal.” Notwithstanding that the antitrust laws have been used to favor particular competitors rather than the competitive process, the Act implies that the federal government stands for open markets.

However, on top of its other failings, antitrust law is a particularly egregious example of government hypocrisy because Congress has exempted unions. That is how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Clayton Act (1914) and the Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932). Moreover, Congress has gone further with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which promotes and protects unions as combinations of workers in restraint of trade.

Economists define a cartel as an agreement among sellers (or buyers) of a product or service to eliminate or restrict competition among its members. For example, if General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford attempt to fix prices and assign sales quotas, that organization would be a cartel and illegal under the Sherman Act. (Whether it should be is another story.)

Similarly, if the employees of General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford organize to fix wages (set a standard union rate) and set up job demarcations (specify who does what work) that organization would be a cartel. Using ordinary English, the worker cartel (union) would be a combination in restraint of trade, but it would not be illegal under the Sherman Act.

The Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts give unions a statutory exemption regarding specific “anticompetitive” activities, including secondary boycotts, picketing, and strikes. Whenever unions undertake other activities that are not specifically exempted, but which are “anticompetitive,” they, too, are declared exempt simply because they must be in order to make the NLRA effective.

For example, in the Allen Bradley case (1945) the Court ruled that collusion between unions and employers that restricts competition in labor markets is exempt, but collusion is not exempt when it restricts competition in other markets. Yet restrictions on competition in labor markets necessarily affect other markets. Every collective bargaining contract is the result of joint action of an employer and a union to fix wages and work rules in a labor market, and this necessarily affects the prices and availability of the goods and services produced by that labor. The Court had to make this spurious distinction to avoid contradicting the NLRA." http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/unions-and-antitrust-governmental-hypocrisy/

It is illegal for employers to form a union and set the wages they pay their employees. It is considered anti-trust. It is legal for employers ban together to collectively bargain with unions. Unions for employees are exempt from anti-trust laws. A union is not an employee. It is a business like any other business except for collective bargaining it is exempt from anti-trust.
If I form the Widget Makers Employers Union and we meet and decide we are only going to pay Widget polishers $1,000 per hour that would be illegal as violating anti-trust.

[sailsmen]

"Kroger to Pay $116 Million to Rivals
Apr 22, 2004 12:00 PM, By Betsy Spethmann`

Kroger Co. is set to pay $116 million to competitors Albertsons and Safeway as part of a mutual-aid pact the three companies set during the 20-week grocery workers strike.

The Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement triggered an antitrust suit from California's Attorney General in February. That suit continues to move forward.

The retailers agreed before the strike began in October to share sales that any one chain earned during the strike at the expense of the other chains (April PROMO). Albertsons and Ralphs locked out United Commercial & Food Workers members in solidarity with Safeway, and agreed not to cut prices while workers struck Safeway.

Picket lines came down early outside Kroger's Ralphs stores when striking workers focused on Safeway's Vons and Pavilion stores and Albertsons. That opened Ralphs to a windfall. It's unclear how the money will be split, but Kroger will pay its rivals before its fiscal quarter ends April 30, according to Kroger's April 14 filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

The AG's suit charges that the grocers' mutual aid pact violates antitrust laws because it included Food 4 Less, a Kroger division not affected by the strike, and the pact extended for two weeks after the end of the strike, enabling grocers to keep prices artificially high to make up for profits lost during the strike."

As you can see the Union was not charged for anti-trust for striking to keep wages artificially high.

[justbob]

You realize Allan Mullaly graduated from University of Kansas first, right? So much for your theory...




Ignorant?
Yes.
Well excuse me,
No.
I'm too busy to give a flying **** about some lazy asses not willing to do something about their situation and better themselves, other than cry and moan about how unfair the world is to them.
Umm, they are. They are asking for what they used to make and a raise as anyone with a right mind does. Lazy asses? How are lazy??? Asking for something does not denote your work ethnics..
Life is not fair, get used to it.
Oh I am. I grew up surrounded by struggling households, watching many friends parents lose their homes, their dreams, and so on. I my self have had many struggles, but I don't cry, I push on and make the best of it.
I've never been on strike.
Me neither.
If I don't show up to work one day because I don't like it, I'm probably gonna get fired.
Really? Me too!
If union workers go on strike and stop working, they usually have to get a raise in the end, because it's illegal to fire them.
Since when is it illegal to fire an employee union or not? Get your facts straight when you say "unions", because in my union, which is nationwide, you WILL be fired from your job if you don't hold your own, plain and simple. No special privileges here.

Look, when you here about "the union is asking for blah blah blah" you NEVER hear what the other side is asking for.

Examples of our last collective bargaining.
From the five designated contractors: We need your members to supply their own van, no less than 5 years old, loaded with their own tools.
We said no problem! BUT, we will need a $50,000 bonus to make that happen.
In the end we were back to square one.

Another one bargained: We would like you to knock $10 an hour off the wage package.
We answered no, how about a $12 increase?

Not only did we settle for $2 an hour, but we made the contractors so happy that they READILY agreed on a THREE year contract!!

Thats the game, They ask for the floor, we ask for the roof, and we all settle in the middle. Total B.S. I know. Are we not entitled to make a wage increase when everything in life goes up? Like Guspech said, we are offered FREE schooling with the miniscule dues we pay in to better ourselves. I take full advantage of that offering and always try to be better than whatever man I work next to, even my boss. The last thing that I am is lazy..:beer:

[J-MAN]

Thanks for the info Sailsmen! Your point is well made. Apparently they acted on poor legal advice.

[sailsmen]

U of CA
FDR prolonged -- not ended -- great depression
Email this articleDate: 2004-08-10
Contact: Meg Sullivan
Phone: 310-825-1046
Email: megs@college.ucla.edu
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted � albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Is history repeating itself?

[PonyUP]

As I ahve read more and more of the comments, and heard a couple actual union card holders chime in, I do feel that there are times where unions are needed. As mentioned before in the Construction industry. When the tradesmen are unionized, it presents an even cost field across companies, which allows the bid process to be fair. And lets face it, those skills and trades that have schooling, much of which is mandatory and takes place in their free time (meaning they don't get paid for it) Well personally I want to know the electrician coming out to my house to fix a wiring problem has continued training available and is licensed, and not just some dude that calls himself an electrician.

So there are industries that probably still require unions, however the UAW has been holding the car industry hostage for way too many years, is it there fault? No, these companies caved on those deals. But you can increase costs only so much before you have to take something back.

Admittedly, this is a lousy comparison, but look at the NFL. The players make up close to 70% of the operating costs of a Franchise. As such ticket prices need to raise, psl's, boxsuites, parking, concessions, all of which have been on a steady increase for over 10 years. Now look at the P&L of your business, ask them how long they would survive with a 70% labor cost.

The UAW is not much different, they have been taking and taking, and when finally faced with the companies folding, they gave back. Now they want to go back to the same practices that bankrupted these companies in the first place. Well okay, but get ready for a very hefty increase in what we pay for cars. And now that Japan is hurting, combined with all the Toyota recalls, its going to get worse before it gets better.

[Fosters]

Ignorant?
Yes.
Well excuse me,
No.
In that case I get to make fun of you for being too stupid or too lazy to negotiate your own salary and benefits. :flamer:


I'm too busy to give a flying **** about some lazy asses not willing to do something about their situation and better themselves, other than cry and moan about how unfair the world is to them.
Umm, they are. They are asking for what they used to make and a raise as anyone with a right mind does. Lazy asses? How are lazy??? Asking for something does not denote your work ethnics..

If you don't like it, leave. Better yourself, increase your productivity somehow to show you earned that raise or those benefits.


Life is not fair, get used to it.
Oh I am. I grew up surrounded by struggling households, watching many friends parents lose their homes, their dreams, and so on. I my self have had many struggles, but I don't cry, I push on and make the best of it.

I came (legally, I know, it's rare) from a borderline 3rd world country; and make 6 figures now. And it wasn't with me whining out in the streets, it was with hard work. If I don't like how much I'm making now and want more, guess what's gonna happen. I'm gonna start looking and looking; if I'm tapped out in my field, I'm gonna do something else, if not, I'm gonna move to the highest bidder. If you don't like where you are, you're free to move and achieve whatever you are to achieve. Using a union to blackmail the very person signing your check; and using that union to get politicians hired that will pass laws giving them even more power over that employer is NOT freedom.


I've never been on strike.
Me neither.

Oh you poor sob, the man is holding you down, and they're making a PROFIT on your back. How do you feel about that?


If I don't show up to work one day because I don't like it, I'm probably gonna get fired.
Really? Me too!
If union workers go on strike and stop working, they usually have to get a raise in the end, because it's illegal to fire them.
Since when is it illegal to fire an employee union or not? Get your facts straight when you say "unions", because in my union, which is nationwide, you WILL be fired from your job if you don't hold your own, plain and simple. No special privileges here.


Since United States Labor Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action

United States labor law also draws a distinction, in the case of private sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, between "economic" and "unfair labor practice" strikes. An employer may not fire, but may permanently replace, workers who engage in a strike over economic issues

Where's that :openmouthinsertfoot: smiley?



Look, when you here about "the union is asking for blah blah blah" you NEVER hear what the other side is asking for.

Nope, don't need to. What you're asking should be between you and your employer. If you need someone else to do your negotiating for you, you're either too stupid to do it yourself, too lazy, or you just want someone to blackmail your employer with shutting down operations and lost revenue to gain higher pay/benefits than you could working out in the free world, that you couldn't obtain yourself otherwise. Which of those 3 is it? Stupid, lazy, or greed?


Examples of our last collective bargaining.
From the five designated contractors: We need your members to supply their own van, no less than 5 years old, loaded with their own tools.
We said no problem! BUT, we will need a $50,000 bonus to make that happen.
In the end we were back to square one.

Another one bargained: We would like you to knock $10 an hour off the wage package.
We answered no, how about a $12 increase?

Not only did we settle for $2 an hour, but we made the contractors so happy that they READILY agreed on a THREE year contract!!

Thats the game, They ask for the floor, we ask for the roof, and we all settle in the middle. Total B.S. I know. Are we not entitled to make a wage increase when everything in life goes up? Like Guspech said, we are offered FREE schooling with the miniscule dues we pay in to better ourselves. I take full advantage of that offering and always try to be better than whatever man I work next to, even my boss. The last thing that I am is lazy..:beer:

Miniscule dues? Funny, that's how the unions get so much power and money? by collecting pennies from you... And it's interesting how union types - for example in Wisconsin - would rather pay union dues than pay the same amount into their health/retirement benefits; and you hear the complaints and the horror stories about how horrible it is to make them pay that money... but yet no problem with the 80 bucks per paycheck (my girlfriend's dues at her last job) going to the union...

So you're proud you strongarmed your company into a pay raise as a result of your collective bargaining. Congratulations. Are you that much more productive now? Or are you just that much more of a mooch?

In closing, I'll leave you with this:

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/multimedia/player/index.php?id=1189

Don't cry and moan when your job goes overseas. Attack the people signing you a check for being wealthy, force them to pay you more with unions and laws giving unions power over said employers, and one day they might just have had enough of it and move your job, without you, somewhere where they don't have to put up with your ****.

[sailsmen]

Unions are fine by me. Just don't force me by law me to join one to get a job and don't force my employer to confiscate union dues from my paycheck to pay it directly to a union.

[PonyUP]

@ Fosters, you don't know Bob from Adam, and obviously do not have first hand knowledge of unions and how they work. But for you to call Bob lazy in itself is an ignorant statement. I have known the man for over 20 years and have never met anyone thats puts more work and attention into everything they do. What Bob won't tell you about is the early years in the union where he earned nothing because it was entry level, had to do all the scud work, go to school without getting paid, take tests without getting paid, and still make time for his family and things around the house. Oh and lets not forget the countless members on here that Bob has always made time for.

You know nothing about his situation or what he does on his job site, and you have made statements that quite honestly were offensive, especially to those that are honest hardworking union members. You obviously have never been involved in a collective bargaining agreement, but I can tell you that in most of the industries an employee doesn't get to sit down with his boss and renegotiate, when you are under contract, it has to be drawn up by lawyers. So it's not like you can just walk in to your bosses office and ask for a raise. Oh and by the way, you can't just leave either. If you are a tradesmen, they are all unionized, so good luck find another job when you have been labeled as trouble for asking for a raise.

There are times where employees need protection, especially in construction, where the industry as a whole has so many backroom dealings do you honestly think they wouldn't abuse emplyee's rights?

In any case, you ahve no right to call a man lazy when you know nothing about the world he comes from. You generalized one unions employees as a stereotype for all union employees, thats not fair, nor is it right in my opinion.

[Fosters]

Unions are fine by me. Just don't force me by law me to join one to get a job and don't force my employer to confiscate union dues from my paycheck to pay it directly to a union.

Exactly. But proposing those changes to some is "taking their rights away" - which "rights" don't really appear anywhere in the constitution...

[CBT]

Exactly. But proposing those changes to some is "taking their rights away" - which "rights" don't really appear anywhere in the constitution...

That's because they are in the Declaration of Independence.

[Fosters]

@ Fosters, you don't know Bob from Adam, and obviously do not have first hand knowledge of unions and how they work. But for you to call Bob lazy in itself is an ignorant statement. I have known the man for over 20 years and have never met anyone thats puts more work and attention into everything they do. What Bob won't tell you about is the early years in the union where he earned nothing because it was entry level, had to do all the scud work, go to school without getting paid, take tests without getting paid, and still make time for his family and things around the house. Oh and lets not forget the countless members on here that Bob has always made time for.

You know nothing about his situation or what he does on his job site, and you have made statements that quite honestly were offensive, especially to those that are honest hardworking union members. You obviously have never been involved in a collective bargaining agreement, but I can tell you that in most of the industries an employee doesn't get to sit down with his boss and renegotiate, when you are under contract, it has to be drawn up by lawyers. So it's not like you can just walk in to your bosses office and ask for a raise. Oh and by the way, you can't just leave either. If you are a tradesmen, they are all unionized, so good luck find another job when you have been labeled as trouble for asking for a raise.

There are times where employees need protection, especially in construction, where the industry as a whole has so many backroom dealings do you honestly think they wouldn't abuse emplyee's rights?

In any case, you ahve no right to call a man lazy when you know nothing about the world he comes from. You generalized one unions employees as a stereotype for all union employees, thats not fair, nor is it right in my opinion.

No, I do not know him. Anyone who isn't willing to negotiate their own salary is either lazy, stupid, or is planning on using the strongarm tactic to gain a higher pay/benefit than they are worth otherwise - making them greedy. Feel free to disagree.

Everyone should get paid whatever they are worth and whatever they agree on with the employer. Blackmailing said employer (which is what unions do) is a tactic that should be against the law, like other types of blackmail is.

[CBT]

No, I do not know him. Anyone who isn't willing to negotiate their own salary is either lazy, stupid, or is planning on using the strongarm tactic to gain a higher pay/benefit than they are worth otherwise - making them greedy. Feel free to disagree.

Everyone should get paid whatever they are worth and whatever they agree on with the employer. Blackmailing said employer (which is what unions do) is not a tactic that should be against the law, like other types of blackmail is.

Why should it not be.

[Fosters]

Why should it not be.

err... my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. originally I typed it out as "is not something that should be allowed by law", and then changed it. I blame ESL classes :o

[CBT]

err... my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. originally I typed it out as "is not something that should be allowed by law", and then changed it. I blame ESL classes :o

I was going to say, your statement just went against all your other statements. :D
I also know Bob, in his defense he is not lazy or stupid, that was a low blow. I've loved him like a brother since we met a few years ago. We've attended Marauder and not-Marauder events together, he's good people. He can tell by my posts i'm not pro-union, but we don't hold it against each other. For every good thing about unions someone can mention, someone else can mention something bad, it's tit for tat. I don't blame people for being in unions, heck get what you can get out of them, just don't hate me for my stance on them and I won't hate thiers.

[duhtroll]

First of all, will you guys please learn the difference between private and public sector unions? They are not the same.

Secondly...

>>>
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-walmart-lawsuit-scenarios-idUSTRE72L5OY20110322

Scenarios: Wal-Mart sex discrimination case at U.S. top court

3:00pm CDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:19pm EDT
(Reuters) - The largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit ever will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 29, pitting Wal-Mart Stores Inc against female employees who seek billions of dollars.

The justices will decide whether the small group of women who began the case 10 years ago can represent a huge nationwide class of potentially millions of current and former employees who accuse the world's largest retailer of discrimination.

However, the nation's high court will not be deciding whether Wal-Mart engaged in intentional sex discrimination in pay and promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since the end of 1998.

An eventual Supreme Court ruling, expected by late June, is likely to uphold or undo the class certification, a decision that could determine whether the lawsuit proceeds to trial.

Here are some scenarios of what could happen next:

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LAWSUIT'S CLASS-ACTION STATUS

In a defeat for Wal-Mart, the case would go back to the federal judge in San Francisco, who has already proposed a two-stage trial.

In the first stage, a judge or a jury would decide whether Wal-Mart should be found liable for a pattern of intentional sex discrimination.

The second phase would decide potential remedies such as punitive damages; back pay, which makes up the difference between actual pay and the amount if there had been no discrimination; and injunctive relief, such as requiring Wal-Mart to change its pay and promotion systems.

Alexandra Lahav, a University of Connecticut law professor, wrote in a recent law review article that the case does not threaten a potential ruinous verdict for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart's attorney, Theodore Boutrous, told the Supreme Court the class involved potentially millions of women with claims for billions of dollars in back pay and possible punitive damages.

Attorneys for the women did not give a total figure, but said individual claims for back pay would be small, an average of $1,100 per year for hourly workers.

Chris Graja, an Argus Research analyst who follows Wal-Mart, has said the case will keep the retailer in the spotlight.

The lawsuit "remains a major financial risk for Wal-Mart but we believe the potential expenses have been well reported on Wall Street and in the media," he wrote in a February report when Wal-Mart issued its fourth-quarter results.

"The company continues to contest the claims and the legal proceedings related to those claims very aggressively. The recent settlement of another group of suits suggests that the company is well aware of the importance of being a good citizen and trying to look forward," Graja said.

>>>

People ***** all the time about unions costing people money. Well, who do you think is going to pay for this suit if Wal-Mart loses? Think the Waltons are just going to write a check or do you think every Great Value product (which lower income shoppers buy to save money) will see a price hike?

Nah, too logical.

A union could have prevented this type of discrimination in the first place.

[Fosters]

I was going to say, your statement just went against all your other statements. :D
I also know Bob, in his defense he is not lazy or stupid, that was a low blow. I've loved him like a brother since we met a few years ago. We've attended Marauder and not-Marauder events together, he's good people. He can tell by my posts i'm not pro-union, but we don't hold it against each other. For every good thing about unions someone can mention, someone else can mention something bad, it's tit for tat. I don't blame people for being in unions, heck get what you can get out of them, just don't hate me for my stance on them and I won't hate thiers.

He may as well be the hardest working man on the planet at his job. He is NOT the hardest working man when it comes to negotiating his own salary and benefits, as long as he will have someone else do it for him. That is all.

[SC Cheesehead]

I was going to say, your statement just went against all your other statements. :D
I also know Bob, in his defense he is not lazy or stupid, that was a low blow. I've loved him like a brother since we met a few years ago. We've attended Marauder and not-Marauder events together, he's good people. He can tell by my posts i'm not pro-union, but we don't hold it against each other. For every good thing about unions someone can mention, someone else can mention something bad, it's tit for tat. I don't blame people for being in unions, heck get what you can get out of them, just don't hate me for my stance on them and I won't hate thiers.


+1 on all points, Casey.

I was a bargaining unit employee for a number of years when I first began my career in the foundry industry. Got out of the union and into management for a number of reasons (which we can discuss over a few beers some time), and I am definitely not pro-union, but I respect the majority of union folks and they are decent, hard-working people.

Bob being foremost among them. :up:

[sailsmen]

First of all, will you guys please learn the difference between private and public sector unions? They are not the same.

Secondly...

>>>
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-walmart-lawsuit-scenarios-idUSTRE72L5OY20110322

Scenarios: Wal-Mart sex discrimination case at U.S. top court

3:00pm CDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:19pm EDT
(Reuters) - The largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit ever will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 29, pitting Wal-Mart Stores Inc against female employees who seek billions of dollars.

The justices will decide whether the small group of women who began the case 10 years ago can represent a huge nationwide class of potentially millions of current and former employees who accuse the world's largest retailer of discrimination.

However, the nation's high court will not be deciding whether Wal-Mart engaged in intentional sex discrimination in pay and promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since the end of 1998.

An eventual Supreme Court ruling, expected by late June, is likely to uphold or undo the class certification, a decision that could determine whether the lawsuit proceeds to trial.

Here are some scenarios of what could happen next:

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LAWSUIT'S CLASS-ACTION STATUS

In a defeat for Wal-Mart, the case would go back to the federal judge in San Francisco, who has already proposed a two-stage trial.

In the first stage, a judge or a jury would decide whether Wal-Mart should be found liable for a pattern of intentional sex discrimination.

The second phase would decide potential remedies such as punitive damages; back pay, which makes up the difference between actual pay and the amount if there had been no discrimination; and injunctive relief, such as requiring Wal-Mart to change its pay and promotion systems.

Alexandra Lahav, a University of Connecticut law professor, wrote in a recent law review article that the case does not threaten a potential ruinous verdict for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart's attorney, Theodore Boutrous, told the Supreme Court the class involved potentially millions of women with claims for billions of dollars in back pay and possible punitive damages.

Attorneys for the women did not give a total figure, but said individual claims for back pay would be small, an average of $1,100 per year for hourly workers.

Chris Graja, an Argus Research analyst who follows Wal-Mart, has said the case will keep the retailer in the spotlight.

The lawsuit "remains a major financial risk for Wal-Mart but we believe the potential expenses have been well reported on Wall Street and in the media," he wrote in a February report when Wal-Mart issued its fourth-quarter results.

"The company continues to contest the claims and the legal proceedings related to those claims very aggressively. The recent settlement of another group of suits suggests that the company is well aware of the importance of being a good citizen and trying to look forward," Graja said.

>>>

People ***** all the time about unions costing people money. Well, who do you think is going to pay for this suit if Wal-Mart loses? Think the Waltons are just going to write a check or do you think every Great Value product (which lower income shoppers buy to save money) will see a price hike?

Nah, too logical.

A union could have prevented this type of discrimination in the first place.

The EEOC is available to everyone. So if everyone gets paid the same as in a Union that prevents what type of discrimination? Does it prevent discrimination against those who are above average workers? No it promotes it by paying everyone the same.

If we assume you are correct in that Walmart was a union shop and the aledged discrimination did not happen then Walmart would have paid higher wages to the aledgedly wronged party resulting in the same price hike.

Did the UAW union prevent the Auto Workers from getting intoxicated on the job or leaving the job while on the clock? I recall in the past the UAW supported this activity.

You are expecting us to beleive that unions bring a lower cost of production to employers resulting in lower prices as in not raising those Great Value prices. In most cases the opposite is true.

[sailsmen]

Exactly. But proposing those changes to some is "taking their rights away" - which "rights" don't really appear anywhere in the constitution...

It is called Right to Work and 22 State have it.

[Fosters]

It is called Right to Work and 22 State have it.

RTW is the right of an employee to not join a union:

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm


A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.
http://www.nrtw.org/images/us-map.gif

There is no right to collective bargain. There is freedom of association, but that doesn't mean the association with many other people can claim collective bargaining is a right. That's like saying blackmailing is a right because it's many people blackmailing an employer with shutting down operations.

[duhtroll]

Wrong, because now instead of just paying the wages over time as a normal operating cost, they could now be paying all of the wages in a lump sum PLUS the court costs.

I am saying the union would have helped with the discrimination. If less discrimination between employees is going to result in higher costs, that is not a union-related problem. It is a basic cost of doing business that Wal-Mart has conveniently avoided. Are you really going to blame the union for making a company treat its employees with basic levels of respect?

How many times have we heard people here say that employees should be paid by ability? Paying women less regardless of ability is exactly the opposite of that. And no, unions do not force everyone to make the same wages, even in the public sector.

The UAW supported being drunk on the job? Care to show me the policy where they endorse that? Seriously. :lol:


The EEOC is available to everyone. So if everyone gets paid the same as in a Union that prevents what type of discrimination? Does it prevent discrimination against those who are above average workers? No it promotes it by paying everyone the same.

If we assume you are correct in that Walmart was a union shop and the aledged discrimination did not happen then Walmart would have paid higher wages to the aledgedly wronged party resulting in the same price hike.

Did the UAW union prevent the Auto Workers from getting intoxicated on the job or leaving the job while on the clock? I recall in the past the UAW supported this activity.

You are expecting us to beleive that unions bring a lower cost of production to employers resulting in lower prices as in not raising those Great Value prices. In most cases the opposite is true.

[duhtroll]

There is no right to collective bargain. There is freedom of association, but that doesn't mean the association with many other people can claim collective bargaining is a right. That's like saying blackmailing is a right because it's many people blackmailing an employer with shutting down operations.

Incorrect. In IA, a right to work state by your map, the Association for our teachers is the recognized bargaining representative for the employees (this is pubic sector of course). The only way that right (which was obtained by surrendering the right to strike) can be removed is either through legislative action, or another group maintaining membership of 51+% of the eligible certified employees taking over that duty. So even then, it would be a different association.

There are two associations here. The "other" association has members including teachers who disagree with the ISEA but still want liability protection in case of a lawsuit (which TMK this other association has never paid a claim and only has one person on staff statewide -- THAT is a scam).

But the "individual bargaining" which you have mentioned several times was the primary cause of all sorts of discrimination in pay prior to collective bargaining. It is practically the whole reason why collective bargaining existed in the first place.

If you were male, you made more than females. If you buddied up to the Admin. and school board, you were paid more than if you didn't. And so on. This is wrong at just about every level, which is why workers decided to organize.

Right now the biggest factor in pay scale for us is experience, as well it should be. Any teacher could tell you that experience has been their greatest ally in their job. That, and no one has the skill set to evaluate teachers in every subject area fairly -- it simply isn't humanly possible.

And before people bring up test scores as a means of evaluation, not every subject is tested and teachers have different students every year. Some do well, some won't and the teacher is less a factor than most people would have everyone believe. The "Teacher of the Year" one year with the biggest gains could be among the underachievers the following year, and it is not because they suddenly became lazy.

[Mr. Man]

You realize Allan Mullaly graduated from University of Kansas first, right? So much for your theory...


Allan Mullaly is the head honcho at Ford. You inquired why can't workers become executives. So before you become a smart mouth why don't you think about what you originally posted.

[tbone]

Unions are fine by me. Just don't force me by law me to join one to get a job and don't force my employer to confiscate union dues from my paycheck to pay it directly to the democrats.

Fixed it for you.

[ChiTownMaraud3r]

I don't understand unions in the auto industry..they're putting together pre-made(stamped, etc) parts ..they are not hand crafting automobiles in Detroit like Rolls Royces and Ferraris..

[sailsmen]

RTW is the right of an employee to not join a union:

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm


http://www.nrtw.org/images/us-map.gif

There is no right to collective bargain. There is freedom of association, but that doesn't mean the association with many other people can claim collective bargaining is a right. That's like saying blackmailing is a right because it's many people blackmailing an employer with shutting down operations.

Originally Posted by sailsmen
Unions are fine by me. Just don't force me by law me to join one to get a job and don't force my employer to confiscate union dues from my paycheck to pay it directly to a union.

Originally Posted by Fosters
Exactly. But proposing those changes to some is "taking their rights away" - which "rights" don't really appear anywhere in the constitution...

Originally Posted by sailsmen

It is called Right to Work and 22 State have it.

I know that. I am in a Right to Work State.

[CBT]

I don't understand unions in the auto industry..they're putting together pre-made(stamped, etc) parts ..they are not hand crafting automobiles in Detroit like Rolls Royces and Ferraris..


Dodge Challenger Wrong Car for Patriotic Commercial?

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20133f14a3764 970b-800wi (http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20133f14a3764 970b-pi)

SRT-8 engine: Built in Mexico.
The rest of the car: Built in Canada.

Yeah, thanks for blowing patriotic smoke up my ass, Chrysler.

[Fosters]

Dodge Challenger Wrong Car for Patriotic Commercial?

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20133f14a3764 970b-800wi (http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20133f14a3764 970b-pi)

SRT-8 engine: Built in Mexico.
The rest of the car: Built in Canada.

Yeah, thanks for blowing patriotic smoke up my ass, Chrysler.

You forgot Profits: Italy.

Those things look cool in pictures... but in real life they are just too god damn enourmous. Parked next to one, it made my excursion look like a crossover. :(

[sailsmen]

Wrong, because now instead of just paying the wages over time as a normal operating cost, they could now be paying all of the wages in a lump sum PLUS the court costs.

I am saying the union would have helped with the discrimination. If less discrimination between employees is going to result in higher costs, that is not a union-related problem. It is a basic cost of doing business that Wal-Mart has conveniently avoided. Are you really going to blame the union for making a company treat its employees with basic levels of respect?

How many times have we heard people here say that employees should be paid by ability? Paying women less regardless of ability is exactly the opposite of that. And no, unions do not force everyone to make the same wages, even in the public sector.

The UAW supported being drunk on the job? Care to show me the policy where they endorse that? Seriously. :lol:

Duhtrolls quote- "People ***** all the time about unions costing people money. Well, who do you think is going to pay for this suit if Wal-Mart loses? Think the Waltons are just going to write a check or do you think every Great Value product (which lower income shoppers buy to save money) will see a price hike?

Nah, too logical.

A union could have prevented this type of discrimination in the first place."

You say the union could have prevented discrimination and if so the labor production costs to Walmart would have been higher, they are saying they were paid less, resulting in a higher cost of Great Value products. Do you understand the difference between operating costs due to higher wage costs and liability due to a judgement?

[sailsmen]

.....Right now the biggest factor in pay scale for us is experience, as well it should be. Any teacher could tell you that experience has been their greatest ally in their job. That, and no one has the skill set to evaluate teachers in every subject area fairly -- it simply isn't humanly possible.

And before people bring up test scores as a means of evaluation, not every subject is tested and teachers have different students every year. Some do well, some won't and the teacher is less a factor than most people would have everyone believe. The "Teacher of the Year" one year with the biggest gains could be among the underachievers the following year, and it is not because they suddenly became lazy.

When you say experience do you mean seniority based on the amount of time you were a union member? Are there any pay incentives for individual teacher performance such as Teacher of the Year or Teacher of the School? What if a person were a member of your union for 30 years in a non-teaching capacity and then became a teacher would they get paid more than someone who had taught for 30 years and then joined your union right after the 30 year union member who just started teaching?
What if the best teacher in the world who had 30 years experience just joined your union would their seniority and pay be only based on just joining your union?

You Parrot every thing that the teacher said in the video, http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/teachers-unions-explained.html, about teachers unions. Did you write the script for her?

If we apply your experience as the best measure of an individuals performance/worth should we not also apply "experience" in selecting and pay for a Dr, Atty, CPA, Mechanic, Insurance Agent, Realtor,etc? What a boost for people in their 70's who are about to retire! Heck why retire, the more "experienced" you are the more you are paid, work until you are 100+!

[Fosters]

When you say experience do you mean seniority based on the amount of time you were a union member? Are there any pay incentives for individual teacher performance such as Teacher of the Year or Teacher of the School?
What if the best teacher in the world who had 30 years experience just joined your union would their seniority and pay be only based on just joining your union?

Why keep the good teachers? We don't need no stinking good teachers, because if the students do good, then the teachers are good, if the students do bad, it's the parents fault for not getting involved. :cool4:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/96425584.html

[Baaad GN]

HMMMMMMMM, down deep I always worried something was different with BOB, but being Brads friend I figured it was just me and "never" imagined he was UNION. Scarey!

[tbone]

When I started at my current job 16 years ago. I told my boss/majority owner that I wanted to learn everything about drilling and be the best there is. Well over the first 6 years I did all that and then some. I learned everything and took all sorts of hazmat classes and training classes, site specific classes water well license from different states yad yada yada. Well as I was learning all and quickly became the most experinced driller. There were and still are a some drillers at our company that have been there 20+ years and still don't know or have a quarter of the knowledge or experince I have. And I gained that in my first 6 years. Well when we were nonunion. I know for a fact I was taken advantage of and payed way less than the guys who where there for 20+ years and decided to learn nothing. I was so upset for so very long. But i also love my job. For so long I was way underpayed for all I had learned as compared to the lazy Sob's who just don't care. Well. Our owners made us join the Operating Engineers union. We as employees didn't want to but we had to. But in the back of my head I was finally going to get what I had worked so long and hard for (that's what she said). A pay raise. Now I hear so many people flap their jaws that hard work and knowledge will get you a good salary. I'm here to tell you Bllsht!! I worked hard, took all the classes, did and still do all the difficult drilling jobs. Where others didn't but yet made way more than me. I was way underpayed for what I knew how to do when we were nonunion. I don't agree with all the union propaganda but I am sure glad I am finally being payed a good wage for all I learned and continue to learn and do. Sure it sucks that those same turds are making the same as I am for doing/knowing a quarter of what I know and do. But management could have gotten rid of them before we were union. I'm rambling. I could go on and on. Blah blah blah. Unions still have their place. My union Operating Engineers Local 150 have an amazing training facility. I can go in there and learn diesel mechanics, welding, classes and certifications of all kinds , cdl license, soil testing, and all earth moving equipment, road building equipment and all cranes including the tower cranes. I would not have that oportunity if I was not in the union. Lots of unions are way to greedy and such. Our union seams to be pretty fair.

All I am saying is I finally have been given a good wage and benifets for a job I love, and worked so hard and learned so much. And I thank the union for that.

I don't think unions are bad in every case. Of course not. But I do think they overstep their bounds way more than they are entitled to, and a lot, not all, union members are spoiled crybabies.

Look, I have an Industrial Technology degree from Illinois State University and have spent 25 years in the construction industry, mainly as a project manager, both commercial and residential. I earned a decent living until I was laid off a couple years ago.
My point is, a 1st year journeyman in the trades or an average assembly line worker in Detroit makes more money and has better benefits than my 4 year degree and 25 years experience has ever afforded me. And they cry and whine at the slightest concession. Would they like to not have a job at all?

Fair? You be the judge.

[duhtroll]

That is the exact point I am trying to make.

Operating costs = necessary. You can argue all you like that paying them what they should have been paid in the first place will raise costs but that is cost that should have been there anyway.

Court costs=unnecessary. The court costs from the lawsuit didn't need to be there if they had just done what they should have been doing with wages.

Taken a step further, it is these types of lawsuits -- ones where people are trying to get away with inequities until they are called on it -- that have a stake in clogging our court system and driving up costs for everyone.

Corporations aren't afraid of the little guy until they get legal involved, and even then paying a settlement is usually cheaper for the corporation than treating people how they should have been treated the entire time.



You say the union could have prevented discrimination and if so the labor production costs to Walmart would have been higher, they are saying they were paid less, resulting in a higher cost of Great Value products. Do you understand the difference between operating costs due to higher wage costs and liability due to a judgement?

[duhtroll]

When you say experience do you mean seniority based on the amount of time you were a union member?

Do I really need to answer this? Maybe you should go get your hands on a contract and read it before we go any further. It is free information from your local school board.


Are there any pay incentives for individual teacher performance such as Teacher of the Year or Teacher of the School?

Sometimes, yes, from different sources. Every contract is different and sometimes awards have monetary stipends.


What if a person were a member of your union for 30 years in a non-teaching capacity and then became a teacher would they get paid more than someone who had taught for 30 years and then joined your union right after the 30 year union member who just started teaching?

Not sure I can answer this for other states, but here the Associations are different for certified and classified staff. For teaching they are advanced primarily on teaching experience. So 30 years as a custodian doesn't advance them on the pay scale at all as a teacher if they got a teaching certification and changed positions.

Some school contracts allow for hiring on higher steps if the job is hard to fill (for a few years we had a hard time finding math teachers, so we had a clause that in order to be competitive we could hire above their earned years in other districts or states - it didn't go well). Again, every contract is different - some have a maximum exp. you can transfer in, and some it is up to school board, and everything in between.


What if the best teacher in the world who had 30 years experience just joined your union would their seniority and pay be only based on just joining your union?

They would be at the top of our pay scale because the maximum step is 16 and there are lanes for B.A. (Bachelor's) B.A. +15, BA+30, MA, MA+15 and MA+30. So the maximum pay is reached after 17 years of experience (start at step 0), a Master's Degree and 30 hours beyond that. Around here that is approx $58,000 IIRC.


You Parrot every thing that the teacher said in the video, http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/teachers-unions-explained.html, about teachers unions. Did you write the script for her?

I didn't parrot anything from that video, unless you would like to make a word-for-word comparison and prove that I did. I think you'll find that once you start making comparisons you'll find that the above video is very inaccurate/slanted and written by someone who only seeks to disparage teachers' unions.


If we apply your experience as the best measure of an individuals performance/worth should we not also apply "experience" in selecting and pay for a Dr, Atty, CPA, Mechanic, Insurance Agent, Realtor,etc? What a boost for people in their 70's who are about to retire! Heck why retire, the more "experienced" you are the more you are paid, work until you are 100+!

Experience is used as a yard stick in every industry. Sure, there are some younger people climbing ladders faster than others, but what would you bet the average age of a CEO is?

25?

30?

I don't care how smart they are, the young CEO is the exception, not the norm.

[duhtroll]

Are you aware that the URL has the word "opinion" in it?

And from the way people want to pay teachers, they obviously don't want any good ones.

And every single year, before my students go out and place first in their conference like they have done the last 12 years, I tell them exactly who they can credit for their success.

Themselves.

EDIT: I'd like to add that if a teacher ever wants to change jobs, they had better do it before acquiring 10 years of experience and their Master's. Why? Many, if not most districts nowadays hire based on salary, not qualifications. If they can get a 1st year teacher, they will gamble and hire them because they are cheaper. In many cases it doesn't matter how good they turn out to be - they are cheap and money is all that matters to some districts. So that 30-year teacher who was "Teacher of the Year" could easily be overlooked for a person right out of college with no experience. You tell me which of them is better for the students.

And here's the best part -- some of those new teachers are being hired because they are cheap, not because they are good (I have seen some pretty poor GPAs and laughable resumes to say nothing of not having a decent recommendation). There are far, FAR more washouts in the first 4 years than there are veteran teachers who abuse the system. Most states have a probation period for the young teachers and fail to fire them when they should (when it is obvious they don't have what it takes). Then districts complain that they have to document everything for a year to prove incompetence before firing them. They could have fired them for taking the wrong parking spot their first year or two but were just too "busy" to pay attention.

So when it comes to paying by experience, given the discrimination *against* veteran teachers in the hiring pool, I'd say things are pretty balanced.


Why keep the good teachers? We don't need no stinking good teachers, because if the students do good, then the teachers are good, if the students do bad, it's the parents fault for not getting involved. :cool4:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/96425584.html

[SC Cheesehead]

That is the exact point I am trying to make.

Operating costs = necessary. You can argue all you like that paying them what they should have been paid in the first place will raise costs but that is cost that should have been there anyway.




Slippery slope here, my friend. Who or what determines what wage "should" be paid?


Basic supply and demand:
http://www.jongriffith.com/wp-content/uploads/basic_supply_demand.png

What will the market bear? This applies to the cost of goods, and the same hold true for wages; e.g. what are people willing to work for?

As for costs that "that should have been there anyway," Does the premise hold that people will accept increased cost of goods on the products they buy, that they won't seek out lower cost goods, especially for commodity items, rather than pay a higher cost for a competitor's items? The basic economic model dictates that lower quantity will drive up demand, which will enable selling goods at a higher price, not pricing goods with the notion that associated costs "should have been there anyway."

[justmelanie]

No, I do not know him. Anyone who isn't willing to negotiate their own salary is either lazy, stupid, or is planning on using the strongarm tactic to gain a higher pay/benefit than they are worth otherwise - making them greedy. Feel free to disagree.

Everyone should get paid whatever they are worth and whatever they agree on with the employer. Blackmailing said employer (which is what unions do) is a tactic that should be against the law, like other types of blackmail is.

NO! He is NOT stupid OR lazy!!! He goes to work EVERY DAY to make money to feed me and his 3 kids!!! You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. He is also NOT stupid, you got 5 people to feed, you go where the money is, even if you hate your job!!!! That is a NO BRAINER!!! DUH! You join the union insted of working for a non-union shop because you get paid more. You have NO IDEA what he is worth and have no right to even comment on it. Being in the union is not a "cushy" place to be, he works his a** off every day, and worries about getting laid off just like non-union guys. NUF SAID! :flamer:

[SC Cheesehead]

NO! He is NOT stupid OR lazy!!! He goes to work EVERY DAY to make money to feed me and his 3 kids!!! You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. He is also NOT stupid, you got 5 people to feed, you go where the money is, even if you hate your job!!!! That is a NO BRAINER!!! DUH! You join the union insted of working for a non-union shop because you get paid more. You have NO IDEA what he is worth and have no right to even comment on it. Being in the union is not a "cushy" place to be, he works his a** off every day, and worries about getting laid off just like non-union guys. NUF SAID! :flamer:

Hey Mel, you know that those of us who have met Bob and are privilaged to be considered a friend hold him in the highest regard.

He DEFINITELY is not stupid OR lazy. (a little nuts, perhaps, but I digress... ;) -----> :D)

Bob: 1

Haters: 0

[Fosters]

You join the union insted of working for a non-union shop because you get paid more.

So it's ok to extort the employer for a wage that he would otherwise not be able to make. I hope you, and Bob, one day own your own company and have your employees form a union that will hold a strike and production hostage over your head anytime they feel they need a raise. :)

[PonyUP]

So it's ok to extort the employer for a wage that he would otherwise not be able to make. I hope you, and Bob, one day own your own company and have your employees form a union that will hold a strike and production hostage over your head anytime they feel they need a raise. :)

Fosters, it's not like he has a choice. He works in the trades, and in Chicago to be licensed in such trade, you MUST be union, there is no middle ground. So for you to say he is stupid or lazy when it comes to bargaining his salary is just plain stupid.

For the record, dude has never bitched about money, his union has never struck, and he never has once complained about it. Stop painting him with such a broad brush. In a world were unions were less involved and he had a choice, then fine your argument holds water. But when you come back from Fantasy Island (Tell Mr Rourke I said hey) and land in reality, that isn't the case. You go where you are trained to go, and where you can make the most money.

I am willing to bet my life that if told there was no longer a union and Bob had to negotiate his own salary, that he would do it and do it well, he doesn't have that option, so stop pretending he does and then calling him stupid or lazy because of it. :shake:

[FordNut]

I used to be pretty neutral on unions, then I got the pleasure of managing a project which was built by union labor. The plumbing was done by 4 different companies. One did copper pipes, another did metal pipes, another did plastic process piping and another did plastic utility piping. Each crew required two people to be on site any time work was done. One day there were 8 plumbers on site and the toilet was clogged. Not a one of them would plunge it, said it wasn't their job, not in their contract. They went outside and used the port-a-potty instead of plunging the toilet. Until I plunged it myself, then they were more than happy to use the indoor plumbing. After that project, I became pretty much anti-union. It was probably one of those lazy bastidges that plugged the toilet to start with.

[justmelanie]

So it's ok to extort the employer for a wage that he would otherwise not be able to make. I hope you, and Bob, one day own your own company and have your employees form a union that will hold a strike and production hostage over your head anytime they feel they need a raise. :)

You have every right to be against unions, however, insulting ONE INDIVIDUAL is not the way to get your point across!:mad2: If you don't want to deal with the union, don't hire union workers! Become a non-union shop. Do not say ALL union workers are stupid and lazy. They are just doing what they have to do to feed their family. I would NEVER generalize an entire group of people because it is WRONG! Would you say ALL people from the middle east are terrorists???? ALL people from the southern United States are in the kkk???? NO, you wouldn't because that would be STUPID, right?????:shake:

[LIGHTNIN1]

We have a union where I work.There are layers of custodians, people on top of peoople. The floors don't get swept or trash emptied a lot. The guy in charge doesn't say a word about it because he thinks it would not do any good.They will retire with good retirement for doing very little.

[Fosters]

Fosters, it's not like he has a choice. He works in the trades, and in Chicago to be licensed in such trade, you MUST be union, there is no middle ground. So for you to say he is stupid or lazy when it comes to bargaining his salary is just plain stupid.

Not having a choice, and defending the union and claiming it's the greatest thing since sliced bread are two totally different things. He's not forced against his will. Excuse me if I don't shed a tear if/when his work gets moved to a RTW state, or outsourced to India, China, or whatever.


For the record, dude has never bitched about money, his union has never struck, and he never has once complained about it. Stop painting him with such a broad brush. In a world were unions were less involved and he had a choice, then fine your argument holds water. But when you come back from Fantasy Island (Tell Mr Rourke I said hey) and land in reality, that isn't the case. You go where you are trained to go, and where you can make the most money.

He never bitched about money because someone else has done it for him. I would never complain about money if someone else would blackmail employers into paying me more than I could hope to make. Scratch that, I never bitched about my pay either because whatever I earn is what I deserve to earn as a result of my work, experience, performance and negotiating skills.


I am willing to bet my life that if told there was no longer a union and Bob had to negotiate his own salary, that he would do it and do it well, he doesn't have that option, so stop pretending he does and then calling him stupid or lazy because of it. :shake:

That would be awesome, and at that point I would regard him as a bright, productive and deserving citizen. Until then, I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who defends blackmailing employers that dare make a profit into raises and unrealistic benefits; because their money buy politicians that give them power, and in turn run states into the ground...

And to stir the pot even more, another blanket statement - all forced unionism states are steaming piles of <insert asterisks for your favorite censored term>.

If the laws (in IL... not likely) were to change and make the state RTW, and/or go even further and make it illegal for unions to collectively bargain, then he too will have to step in the real world (or I guess this fantasy land I live in) with those of us who take pay cuts in times of recession, and don't get a raise just because they threaten to not work anymore (while being un-fire-able). At that point, I'll buy him a beer :beer: Until then, he can go join duhtroll and Michael Moore for all I care :)

[duhtroll]

The issue is women being paid less than men doing the same job.

No other qualifiers, just sex discrimination.

So yes, ABSOLUTELY "what they should have been paid."

Or do you disagree and think the disparity between women and men *should* exist?


Slippery slope here, my friend. Who or what determines what wage "should" be paid?


Basic supply and demand:
http://www.jongriffith.com/wp-content/uploads/basic_supply_demand.png

What will the market bear? This applies to the cost of goods, and the same hold true for wages; e.g. what are people willing to work for?

As for costs that "that should have been there anyway," Does the premise hold that people will accept increased cost of goods on the products they buy, that they won't seek out lower cost goods, especially for commodity items, rather than pay a higher cost for a competitor's items? The basic economic model dictates that lower quantity will drive up demand, which will enable selling goods at a higher price, not pricing goods with the notion that associated costs "should have been there anyway."

[Fosters]

We have a union where I work.There are layers of custodians, people on top of peoople. The floors don't get swept or trash emptied a lot. The guy in charge doesn't say a word about it because he thinks it would not do any good.They will retire with good retirement for doing very little.

Sounds similar to my girlfriend's last job. She, an accountant, got yelled at for taking out her trash (which can hadn't been taken out for a few days), because that's a union job... I've yet to hear of a union promoting higher job performance and more productivity... There may be productive people working in union shops, however, their money ensures the lazy and stupid get protected. It really doesn't take more than that to cause at least a percentage of people to become less productive - if the outcome is the same regardless of the effort put in.

[duhtroll]

Even *I* don't think unions are "the greatest thing since sliced bread."

Matter of fact, I left our executive board over disagreements with how it was being run. That said, it still serves a purpose and I still see it as being very valuable, as many unions still do/are.

The "broad brush" comment earlier was spot-on.

But then again, you can find examples of useless, lazy workers in EVERY job, union or no.

Heck, a friend of mine works with an office FULL of them. She works reception and cannot for the life of her get an agent to get off their ass and come help a customer.

More than once, they have actually sat at their desks and argued as to who should get up and walk the 20 yards to go help the person waiting. This goes on for up to 10-15 minutes at a time. One customer even left because they were tired of waiting.

No union, there. They have a lazy supervisor so they get by with being paid to do very little, and they make salaries higher than mine. I am going to guess since it is an insurance company they have pretty decent coverage, too.

Does it bother me? Not really as I am not a customer there - but every single person on this board can give examples of useless people, because there are a lot of them out there in the workplace and that is a good example. Were I to go about saying "all insurance agents are leeches" it would come close to your view on organized labor.

Just out of curiosity, one of your main points is that you negotiate for your own salary and that somehow makes you better than those who don't. So, since I have negotiated salaries for over 50 people at a time including myself for many years, I should be worth more than you, because you only negotiate for yourself?

No, I don't believe that, but see how stupid it sounds?

So to sum up, you earn your money because of how awesome you are, but union workers don't?

Please, oh for the love of all that is sacred, please keep saying that to as many people as you can.

I love karma. :D


Not having a choice, and defending the union and claiming it's the greatest thing since sliced bread are two totally different things. He's not forced against his will. Excuse me if I don't shed a tear if/when his work gets moved to a RTW state, or outsourced to India, China, or whatever.



He never bitched about money because someone else has done it for him. I would never complain about money if someone else would blackmail employers into paying me more than I could hope to make. Scratch that, I never bitched about my pay either because whatever I earn is what I deserve to earn as a result of my work, experience, performance and negotiating skills.



That would be awesome, and at that point I would regard him as a bright, productive and deserving citizen. Until then, I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who defends blackmailing employers that dare make a profit into raises and unrealistic benefits; because their money buy politicians that give them power, and in turn run states into the ground...

And to stir the pot even more, another blanket statement - all forced unionism states are steaming piles of <insert asterisks for your favorite censored term>.

If the laws (in IL... not likely) were to change and make the state RTW, and/or go even further and make it illegal for unions to collectively bargain, then he too will have to step in the real world (or I guess this fantasy land I live in) with those of us who take pay cuts in times of recession, and don't get a raise just because they threaten to not work anymore (while being un-fire-able). At that point, I'll buy him a beer :beer: Until then, he can go join duhtroll and Michael Moore for all I care :)

[SC Cheesehead]

The issue is women being paid less than men doing the same job.

No other qualifiers, just sex discrimination.

So yes, ABSOLUTELY "what they should have been paid."

Or do you disagree and think the disparity between women and men *should* exist?

Mis-understood your point, no disagreements on equal pay for equal work.

We are in total alignment on that one. :up:

[guspech750]

So it's ok to extort the employer for a wage that he would otherwise not be able to make. I hope you, and Bob, one day own your own company and have your employees form a union that will hold a strike and production hostage over your head anytime they feel they need a raise. :)



You are retarded. Extort. That makes me laugh. Both side come together and state what each side wants and then meet in the middle. There's no extortion. And I have thought about getting together my own drilling company and I would be union. The only thing stopping me is the initial cost of a tractor trailer and a drill rig. Even the owners get benifets from our union as owner operators. Crap. One owner of a union drilling company (a competitor of ours) her husband is a union member and works in a sand and gravel pit. And on a side note. I may be a union member but I sure as hell don't agree with everything the union says or would like to have.
Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

[justbob]

I used to be pretty neutral on unions, then I got the pleasure of managing a project which was built by union labor. The plumbing was done by 4 different companies. One did copper pipes, another did metal pipes, another did plastic process piping and another did plastic utility piping. Each crew required two people to be on site any time work was done. One day there were 8 plumbers on site and the toilet was clogged. Not a one of them would plunge it, said it wasn't their job, not in their contract. They went outside and used the port-a-potty instead of plunging the toilet. Until I plunged it myself, then they were more than happy to use the indoor plumbing. After that project, I became pretty much anti-union. It was probably one of those lazy bastidges that plugged the toilet to start with.
Sounds like the job from hell Brian. That wouldn't of have sat well with me either and I understand your stance given your story. None of what you wrote happens here. Just plain old hard work and plenty of kiss azz to the super's, because as you know, they can make life livin hell...


Not having a choice, and defending the union and claiming it's the greatest thing since sliced bread are two totally different things. He's not forced against his will. Excuse me if I don't shed a tear if/when his work gets moved to a RTW state, or outsourced to India, China, or whatever.



He never bitched about money because someone else has done it for him. I would never complain about money if someone else would blackmail employers into paying me more than I could hope to make. Scratch that, I never bitched about my pay either because whatever I earn is what I deserve to earn as a result of my work, experience, performance and negotiating skills.



That would be awesome, and at that point I would regard him as a bright, productive and deserving citizen. Until then, I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who defends blackmailing employers that dare make a profit into raises and unrealistic benefits; because their money buy politicians that give them power, and in turn run states into the ground...
I'm sorry, did I request you to feel sorry for me? I must have missed that.

And to stir the pot even more, another blanket statement - all forced unionism states are steaming piles of <insert asterisks for your favorite censored term>.

If the laws (in IL... not likely) were to change and make the state RTW, and/or go even further and make it illegal for unions to collectively bargain, then he too will have to step in the real world (or I guess this fantasy land I live in) with those of us who take pay cuts in times of recession, and don't get a raise just because they threaten to not work anymore (while being un-fire-able). At that point, I'll buy him a beer :beer: Until then, he can go join duhtroll and Michael Moore for all I care :)
This almost sounds like, hold on, wait for it...... JEALOUSY! You see, there is a battery of tests, insane interviews with you in a seat surrounded by four tables and around 18-20 union officials TRYING to piss you off or get you walk out in fear, drug tests, a physical like I have never seen, a paperwork trail of background schooling and private meetings. The process takes five months and started with I believe 3800 applicants and ended with 80 taken in the year I joined (on my first try thank you).

So, you can go ahead and ramble on all you want. I'll just sit back and get my chuckles in. Think you pissed in my froot loops? Sorry, but your opinions actually make me laugh. Hard. I'm done here, threads like this are never ending battles because they are made up of opinions and anger. I'll stick to the car talk as this is pointless.


Mis-understood your point, no disagreements on equal pay for equal work.

We are in total alignment on that one. :up:
Right on Rex, same here.


In closing, thanks for the kind words from a number of you. Beers on me in Kentucky (after I strong arm another $50 from my boss):D

BTW Tom, why the beef with us? Your up and running business can follow right behind us and steal our work for pennies less! It happens ALL the time. Ofcourse, they don't pay their employees $65 an hour like our boss's do and yet our boss's seem to live quite happy.. Just where does all that extra money go? That sounds like the greed part to me. Also, I do have a choice being union or not, but why make 2/3rd's less for the very same work? To be nice to my boss? Why? He has a choice to be union or not as well...

Just bustin on your sack of two Tom, whens the BBQ? I'm hungry!:beer:

[guspech750]

Speaking of Tom. Tom. Are you going to Louisville with us?

Bob rocks. And rocks hard. (wink wink Bob. I want a free beer. ) :)

(Yeah it's off topic in this thread. Ask me if I gaf!!)

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

[tbone]

Bob and Joe (and all involved),
I don't have a beef with your unions. I have a beef with the UAW that just saw 2 car companies go belly up, got a large stake (at the expense of stockholders) in each with the help and support of the US Government, and then can't stand to see the third succeed without them benefiting from it in the first year of its' recovery.

It's been a great debate and it's a tribute that we are able to discuss this in the greatest country in the history of the world, the USA!:bows:
Peace to All!:beer:

[Kennyrauder]

Boy is everyone forgetting about the Japanese Koreans Chinese dumping all of there products into the US & Canada??? Even Kodak shut down there plant in New York even though it was more efficient than Fugi film.We don't retaliate to unfair trade practices because Walmart would sell us all out for a quick buck. That's just a start Please don't get me going on this .

[CBT]

Hey Mel, you know that those of us who have met Bob and are privilaged to be considered a friend hold him in the highest regard.

He DEFINITELY is not stupid OR lazy. (a little nuts, perhaps, but I digress... ;) -----> :D)

Bob: 1

Haters: 0

It's as if you could read my mind. :eek: :beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

It's as if you could read my mind. :eek: :beer:

That's cuz great minds think alike... :D

[CBT]

That's cuz great minds think alike... :D
Duh! WINNING! :beer:

[justbob]

Casey sends me a smile almost hourly! :) What would I do without all the nude circus freak pics? Keep em coming!

Rex, we decided to attach a 20' lead on you after 10 drinks this year!! haha No more disappearing for you.. :)

[CBT]

Casey sends me a smile almost hourly! :) What would I do without all the nude circus freak pics? Keep em coming!

Rex, we decided to attach a 20' lead on you after 10 drinks this year!! haha No more disappearing for you.. :)

I went to bed around midnight last night. Alarm goes off at 4:15 a.m., and there is already a dirty picture on my phone from justbob, lol.

I like the leader line for Rex, but I say we put a shock collar at the neck end of it :lol:

[Fosters]

You are retarded. Extort. That makes me laugh. Both side come together and state what each side wants and then meet in the middle. There's no extortion. And I have thought about getting together my own drilling company and I would be union. The only thing stopping me is the initial cost of a tractor trailer and a drill rig. Even the owners get benifets from our union as owner operators. Crap. One owner of a union drilling company (a competitor of ours) her husband is a union member and works in a sand and gravel pit. And on a side note. I may be a union member but I sure as hell don't agree with everything the union says or would like to have.
Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

Yes, extort, or blackmail, whatever you want to call it. Sit down at a table and demand a raise for every individual, good or bad performer, or else we strike and you can't fire any of us because of a BS law. Would you as an employer like to be squeezed like that by your employees?

If a person works in a union and they don't agree with what the union does but have no choice otherwise, I have no beef with said person. If a person on the other hand works in a union and they think the above practices are fair to the employer, then I think that person is stupid and/or lazy.

There is absolutely nothing stopping each individual, if they want a raise or better benefits, to work their way to the top and become that executive... well, except in some cases - as at my gf's old job - the union, where promotions and raises are done by length of being with the company, not by the individual's abilities/willingness to work harder.

[Fosters]

This almost sounds like, hold on, wait for it...... JEALOUSY! You see, there is a battery of tests, insane interviews with you in a seat surrounded by four tables and around 18-20 union officials TRYING to piss you off or get you walk out in fear, drug tests, a physical like I have never seen, a paperwork trail of background schooling and private meetings. The process takes five months and started with I believe 3800 applicants and ended with 80 taken in the year I joined (on my first try thank you).

So, you can go ahead and ramble on all you want. I'll just sit back and get my chuckles in. Think you pissed in my froot loops? Sorry, but your opinions actually make me laugh. Hard. I'm done here, threads like this are never ending battles because they are made up of opinions and anger. I'll stick to the car talk as this is pointless.

Yes, that's it, you got it, I'm jealous that you're in a union. I'm jealous of the other poster's clogged toilet with a bunch of union plumbers around. I'm jealous of not being in my gf's shoes with trash cans not being taken out by the union janitors. Man, you have me pegged.

You're not the only one who has to take drug tests and get grilled in interviews, but I'm glad you think that's so hard. Go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back. :)

[guspech750]

If Americans "make too much money". How about the rest of the world finally catch up from the dark ages. Why should we have to take paycuts. Instead of paying Chineese workers $1 an hour. How about get with the times and pay them $15 an hour. Our country has worked hard to get to where it's at. It's time for other lowballing low paying countries to step up.

[CBT]

If Americans "make too much money". How about the rest of the world finally catch up from the dark ages. Why should we have to take paycuts. Instead of paying Chineese workers $1 an hour. How about get with the times and pay them $15 an hour. Our country has worked hard to get to where it's at. It's time for other lowballing low paying countries to step up.

Shut up, union thug. Hey check your phone texteses, lemme know what's up.

[PonyUP]

Yes, that's it, you got it, I'm jealous that you're in a union. I'm jealous of the other poster's clogged toilet with a bunch of union plumbers around. I'm jealous of not being in my gf's shoes with trash cans not being taken out by the union janitors. Man, you have me pegged.

You're not the only one who has to take drug tests and get grilled in interviews, but I'm glad you think that's so hard. Go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back. :)

If your bargaining skills were so great, you could have all these perks that you think all unions have. Don't blame unions because your job requires asking "would you like fries with that?" and you haven't bargained a better position. You seem bitter, maybe your own laziness has prevented you from improving your own life. As far as your girlfriends trash can, if the lazy union janitors didn't empty it and she was so taken back by it, why was she so lazy to not do it herself?

[rauder775]

Executives are paid to perform - if they don't they get canned.

Union workers are the opposite. (overpaid and impossible to fire)

If you are good prove it. (Executives can - UAW doesn't have to)


X2. Well said!

[Fosters]

If your bargaining skills were so great, you could have all these perks that you think all unions have. Don't blame unions because your job requires asking "would you like fries with that?" and you haven't bargained a better position. You seem bitter, maybe your own laziness has prevented you from improving your own life. As far as your girlfriends trash can, if the lazy union janitors didn't empty it and she was so taken back by it, why was she so lazy to not do it herself?

My job doesn't require asking "would you like fries with that", I'm a database administrator with over 10 years experience; and being that I started at this position 6 months ago, and got a 20k raise in the move, I think that qualifies as negotiating a better salary. Nice try though. I am perfectly happy with where I am; and I've earned exactly what I negotiated for on my own. Nothing more, nothing less. And what's more, I don't pay money to an organization to shelter lazy developers/DBAs from getting fired. Not something the union crowd can be proud of.

She did empty the trashcan herself and got in trouble for it because that was a union job, and she was thus taking some union employee's work away. Learn to read the whole story.

[Fosters]

If Americans "make too much money". How about the rest of the world finally catch up from the dark ages. Why should we have to take paycuts. Instead of paying Chineese workers $1 an hour. How about get with the times and pay them $15 an hour. Our country has worked hard to get to where it's at. It's time for other lowballing low paying countries to step up.

Supply and demand. If there are enough people that are willing to work for $1, why not let them? Don't get me started on the minimum wage laws... :argue: :)

[Vortex]

Trade unions are there to protect the workers. I don't agree with all their tactics but if we didnt have unions you wouldnt be working a 40 hour week.

[PonyUP]

My job doesn't require asking "would you like fries with that", I'm a database administrator with over 10 years experience; and being that I started at this position 6 months ago, and got a 20k raise in the move, I think that qualifies as negotiating a better salary. Nice try though. I am perfectly happy with where I am; and I've earned exactly what I negotiated for on my own. Nothing more, nothing less. And what's more, I don't pay money to an organization to shelter lazy developers/DBAs from getting fired. Not something the union crowd can be proud of.

She did empty the trashcan herself and got in trouble for it because that was a union job, and she was thus taking some union employee's work away. Learn to read the whole story.

Oh I understand now, if you are in union you didn't earn anything right? I'm not saying there aren't bad unions or bad employees out there, there are, and they are everywhere. However you leveled an insulting remark towards someone you don't even know, and called them lazy because they are in a union, when he wouldn't be able to apply his trade without being in a union. And for that he's lazy?

Well okay, if we want to make general remarks, I could say all people that think every card carrying union member is lazy, holds a narrow and feeble mind.

When you live in a black and white world, that's all your gonna see pal. When you can't understand that the actions of one union, being the UAW, do not reflect the actions of all unions, then it would be impossible to ever get through the wall of concrete that surrounds your mind.

Everyone has union horror stories, you wanna level your anger at the unions, fine, but don't level it at the individual employees who bust there ass. It's not fair, and it's insulting.

How would you like it if I said you were lazy because your job involves sitting in front of a computer all day? You wouldn't like it, because we both know there's more that goes into it than that. So stop insulting someone's life simply because they belong to a union.

I doubt you would be musky enough to tell a union member to their face that they are stupid and lazy, but if you are I challenge you too. I'll even send a supply of straws your way so you can eat through them after the conversation. You're insulting people's livlihoods and what they have had to sacrifice in this economy.

That's the end of my rant, and submitting to this feeble argument. Good day to you

[Fosters]

Everyone has union horror stories, you wanna level your anger at the unions, fine, but don't level it at the individual employees who bust there ass. It's not fair, and it's insulting.


Everyone you hear of in a union is a saint, a hard worker and absolutely perfect by any measurement. Some have even walked on water. Not a single snowflake is to blame for the avalanche. Funny how that works.

As I said in past posts; I have no beef with those who are unionized against their will but have no other option. I do have beef with those openly supporting and defending unions. Fact of the matter is, I have to negotiate my own salary and benefits, they do not. They can be the greatest worker other than that, and they can also be the worst worker, they'll get the same deal. How can anyone born in capitalism support the equal outcomes for different effort is beyond me.


How would you like it if I said you were lazy because your job involves sitting in front of a computer all day? You wouldn't like it, because we both know there's more that goes into it than that. So stop insulting someone's life simply because they belong to a union.
That would be fine, being your greatest argument is that my job involves a chair, I'm sure everyone else reading this from work would be able to relate :D



I doubt you would be musky enough to tell a union member to their face that they are stupid and lazy, but if you are I challenge you too. I'll even send a supply of straws your way so you can eat through them after the conversation. You're insulting people's livlihoods and what they have had to sacrifice in this economy.

That's the end of my rant, and submitting to this feeble argument. Good day to you

What are you trying to say?

http://www.redstatereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SEIU_beating.png

I did go to the Madison tea party counter-rally a few weeks ago. Doesn't get anymore anti-union than that. I was able to walk home just fine.

Unions have had to sacrifice... Right. In UAW's case, which this thread was about, that sacrifice was right up to the point where the sacrifice was taken over by the stock holders, and the UAW now owns part two of the largest 3 auto makers in the US. And soon to be all 3.

[tbone]

http://www.redstatereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SEIU_beating.png

I did go to the Madison tea party counter-rally a few weeks ago. Doesn't get anymore anti-union than that. I was able to walk home just fine.

Unions have had to sacrifice... Right. In UAW's case, which this thread was about, that sacrifice was right up to the point where the sacrifice was taken over by the stock holders, and the UAW now owns part two of the largest 3 auto makers in the US. And soon to be all 3.

That's a big 10-4 good buddy!

[MM2004]

Well,

I have read some interesting points of view from many sides.

Think it's about time to move on.

Mike.