Hate big unions? You will love this!

[kernie]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316908


From the above link..



Progress Rail Services, a subsidiary of giant Caterpillar Inc., is threatening to close the 61-year-old locomotive manufacturing plant unless employees accept a pay-cut of more than 50 percent in some cases. Bob Scott, plant chair, confirmed to Digital Journal that the company's latest offer would slash wages to $16.50 from $35 an hour. The bargaining committee has rejected the offer and Friday a strike vote will be held. The workers are represented by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW).
Union members, fearing the company may attempt to move valuable, core equipment from the London plant, have been watching the facility 24-hours a day since last Friday. Where would the equipment go? EMD employees with whom Digital Journal spoke believe a plant recently opened in Muncie, Indiana would be the logical destination.
Muncie may be located in the United States but it is a city becoming known for its third world wages. "The lower wages offered in London still top what's paid at Progress Rail's refurbished plant in Muncie, Ind., where workers make as little as $12 an hour," according to Jonathan Sher of The London Free Press (http://m.lfpress.com/news/london/19171416).
According to the Working Poor Families Project (http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/states/popups/indiana.html), Indiana ranks 27th among American States when it comes to jobs in occupations offering pay below the poverty line. There's a good reason why Caterpillar picked the rust belt city of Muncie for its latest American plant. Skilled workers are available there for unskilled worker wages.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316908#ixzz1i38FRjny



12 bucks an hour!, is that Muncie India? or Muncie Indiana?

The working class is dying, sad.

[Phrog_gunner]

That's crazy. A job that like that, which requires no college degree, should pay at least $800,000 an hour.

[justbob]

There will always be men and women willing to work for less and keep average working wages down. Let them work for "below poverty line", I'll pass. :rolleyes:

[kernie]

That's crazy. A job that like that, which requires no college degree, should pay at least $800,000 an hour.


Don't worry, there will be lots of college grads working for poverty wages at the plant in Muncie in a year or two.

[Phrog_gunner]

Don't worry, there will be lots of college grads working for poverty wages at the plant in Muncie in a year or two.

True, that's about all that most of those online "degrees" are worth, anyway.

[MrBluGruv]

My favorite part is how one side uses contained extreme examples of unions pushing the envelope to try to prove they shouldn't exist, and then the other side uses contained extreme examples of "the man" pushing too hard on the worker to try to prove that they should exist.

You know why it's my favorite part?


Because this back and forth of using extreme examples to try to generalize the real situation gets us exactly no where, while the root problems still persist.

[sailsmen]

Law gives huge pension perks to union leaders


In all, 23 expected to collect combined $56 million in their lifetimes


September 21, 2011|By Jason Grotto, Tribune reporter


All it took to give nearly two dozen labor leaders from Chicago a windfall worth millions was a few tweaks to a handful of sentences in the state's lengthy pension code.

The changes became law with no public debate among state legislators and, more importantly, no cost analysis.

Twenty years later, 23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds thanks to the changes, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation found.




Ads by Google

Corporate Pension LumpsumTurn Corporate Pensions into Cash. Find out how much you can get Now! lumpsum-settlement.com




Because the law bases the city pensions on the labor leaders' union salaries, they are reaping retirement benefits that far outstrip the modest salaries they made as city employees. On average, their pensions are nearly three times higher than what the typical retired city worker receives.

No one from either the state Legislature or city government will take credit for the law, which passed in 1991, and the process of drafting pension legislation in Springfield is so shrouded in secrecy that there's no way of knowing exactly whom to hold responsible.

The Tribune and WGN-TV found that Senate President John Cullerton was one of only 10 lawmakers on the committee that inserted the changes into a much larger bill. He's also the only one who is still in office.

Cullerton, who declined to be interviewed for this story, denied being involved in the changes and issued a statement that acknowledged the law now looks like a bad idea.

"Municipal pensions should be for the hard-working municipal employees, who typically toil in obscurity, loyally contribute to the pension funds and aren't about to get rich off of their retirements," he said in a prepared statement. "Outliers such as those highlighted by the WGN and Tribune reports should be corrected in order to help restore the system's fiscal and public integrity."

Making changes won't be easy, however. That's because the state constitution says pension benefits cannot be diminished once they are earned.

Pension experts from around the country say they've never heard of such a perk for union leaders. They warn that it not only creates opportunities to scam the system but also robs the city of its ability to control pension costs. The city doesn't set union salaries, the most important ingredient in determining the size of the leaders' pensions.

What's more, none of the labor officials retired in the traditional sense. Even as they collected their inflated city pensions, they held on to their high-paying union jobs. A decade ago, those public pension funds were flush, but they're now in such deep financial trouble that they threaten to burden taxpayers and dues-paying union workers alike.

"At a time when the public is going to be asked to pay higher taxes for fewer services, the revelation that there are benefits being paid for work that doesn't directly relate to official city business is outrageous," said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, a nonpartisan policy research group.

"It also undermines the hardworking government employees when state statutes are manipulated to benefit a handful of people," he said.

Since the 1950s, city workers who take leaves of absence to work full time for unions have been able to remain in city pension funds if they choose. The time they spend at their union jobs counts toward their city pensions
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-21/news/ct-met-pensions-legislation-watchdog-20110921_1_pension-funds-municipal-pensions-pension-legislation

Why not post about all the Mob Union Leaders who stole from the Unins Pension Fund? They were really looking out for their fellow "Union Brothers". I have clients who are Unionized. The Unions abuse their members more than the average employer.

[kernie]

My favorite part is how one side uses contained extreme examples of unions pushing the envelope to try to prove they shouldn't exist, and then the other side uses contained extreme examples of "the man" pushing too hard on the worker to try to prove that they should exist.

You know why it's my favorite part?


Because this back and forth of using extreme examples to try to generalize the real situation gets us exactly no where, while the root problems still persist.


Law gives huge pension perks to union leaders


In all, 23 expected to collect combined $56 million in their lifetimes


September 21, 2011|By Jason Grotto, Tribune reporter


All it took to give nearly two dozen labor leaders from Chicago a windfall worth millions was a few tweaks to a handful of sentences in the state's lengthy pension code.

The changes became law with no public debate among state legislators and, more importantly, no cost analysis.

Twenty years later, 23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds thanks to the changes, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation found.




Ads by Google

Corporate Pension LumpsumTurn Corporate Pensions into Cash. Find out how much you can get Now! lumpsum-settlement.com




Because the law bases the city pensions on the labor leaders' union salaries, they are reaping retirement benefits that far outstrip the modest salaries they made as city employees. On average, their pensions are nearly three times higher than what the typical retired city worker receives.

No one from either the state Legislature or city government will take credit for the law, which passed in 1991, and the process of drafting pension legislation in Springfield is so shrouded in secrecy that there's no way of knowing exactly whom to hold responsible.

The Tribune and WGN-TV found that Senate President John Cullerton was one of only 10 lawmakers on the committee that inserted the changes into a much larger bill. He's also the only one who is still in office.

Cullerton, who declined to be interviewed for this story, denied being involved in the changes and issued a statement that acknowledged the law now looks like a bad idea.

"Municipal pensions should be for the hard-working municipal employees, who typically toil in obscurity, loyally contribute to the pension funds and aren't about to get rich off of their retirements," he said in a prepared statement. "Outliers such as those highlighted by the WGN and Tribune reports should be corrected in order to help restore the system's fiscal and public integrity."

Making changes won't be easy, however. That's because the state constitution says pension benefits cannot be diminished once they are earned.

Pension experts from around the country say they've never heard of such a perk for union leaders. They warn that it not only creates opportunities to scam the system but also robs the city of its ability to control pension costs. The city doesn't set union salaries, the most important ingredient in determining the size of the leaders' pensions.

What's more, none of the labor officials retired in the traditional sense. Even as they collected their inflated city pensions, they held on to their high-paying union jobs. A decade ago, those public pension funds were flush, but they're now in such deep financial trouble that they threaten to burden taxpayers and dues-paying union workers alike.

"At a time when the public is going to be asked to pay higher taxes for fewer services, the revelation that there are benefits being paid for work that doesn't directly relate to official city business is outrageous," said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, a nonpartisan policy research group.

"It also undermines the hardworking government employees when state statutes are manipulated to benefit a handful of people," he said.

Since the 1950s, city workers who take leaves of absence to work full time for unions have been able to remain in city pension funds if they choose. The time they spend at their union jobs counts toward their city pensions
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-21/news/ct-met-pensions-legislation-watchdog-20110921_1_pension-funds-municipal-pensions-pension-legislation

Why not post about all the Mob Union Leaders who stole from the Unins Pension Fund? They were really looking out for their fellow "Union Brothers". I have clients who are Unionized. The Unions abuse their members more than the average employer.


Big bizz thanks you, you make it all possible.

[MrBluGruv]

Big bizz thanks you, you make it all possible.

Beg your pardon?

[kernie]

Beg your pardon?


Ha! thats what i thought when i read your original reply!

:beer:

[MrBluGruv]

Ha! thats what i thought when i read your original reply!

:beer:

oh lord, this game again. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to figure out how exactly you think me criticizing BOTH sides of the argument is helping big business?


EDIT: and for that matter, why big business in and of itself is a dirty word to you.

[kernie]

oh lord, this game again. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to figure out how exactly you think me criticizing BOTH sides of the argument is helping big business?


EDIT: and for that matter, why big business in and of itself is a dirty word to you.


This is black and white, the company is saying take 50+% wage cuts or we will close this long term very efficient plant and move it to Muncie Indiana which everyone knows is going to happen anyway.

There are no winners here but Cat.

[MrBluGruv]

This is black and white, the company is saying take 50+% wage cuts or we will close this long term very efficient plant and move it to Muncie Indiana which everyone knows is going to happen anyway.

There are no winners here but Cat.

So why did you position this thread as an argument in favor of unions in general if you supposedly only care about this isolated incident?

Obviously in this case, there's shady business, and I would want to know a LOT more about it before I'd make a judgement, simply because business moves this big are absurd to come out of nowhere.

But why, if this specific story is all you were trying to say deserved attention, would you title the thread "Hate big unions? You will love this!" if you weren't trying to make a statement about unions in general?



Coincidentally, you are again levying a judgement on all big business based on this one incident. Yes, I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure you and sailsman can post the back-and-forth opposing stories ad nauseum, but seriously, why the sweeping generalities from one story?

[Phrog_gunner]

Is Canada not a free country in which any worker can choose, or choose to not take, a job that pays them what they think is a fair wage?

Is it also a country in which any company is free to pay whatever wage they want and move their plant to whatever city they want?

What is so wrong with freedom?

The company has the freedom to offer a pay rate that is absurdly low to its employees, and the working people have the freedom to not take said rate. If the rate is so absurd then nooone should accept work at that company and a company without workers will obviously die. Then the company will go under and there is one less company out there that doesn't value it's employees. I don't think anyone would cry about that.

[kernie]

So why did you position this thread as an argument in favor of unions in general if you supposedly only care about this isolated incident?

Obviously in this case, there's shady business, and I would want to know a LOT more about it before I'd make a judgement, simply because business moves this big are absurd to come out of nowhere.

But why, if this specific story is all you were trying to say deserved attention, would you title the thread "Hate big unions? You will love this!" if you weren't trying to make a statement about unions in general?



Coincidentally, you are again levying a judgement on all big business based on this one incident. Yes, I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure you and sailsman can post the back-and-forth opposing stories ad nauseum, but seriously, why the sweeping generalities from one story?


Ok, well i guess this is acceptable behavior from bid bizz to you.

Again, big bizz thanks you.

[Marauder386]

Hell, the Federal Union I belong to promotes and supports walking all over workers...its more important to push some idiotic agenda than to make sure Federal,OPM and Departmental management is fair and just...my first experience with a union is my last because of it...

[MrBluGruv]

I don't think anyone would cry about that.

People would definitely cry in the short term, it ain't exactly easy to transfer jobs on a whim. But in the bigger picture, it's the better alternative compared to a bailout or over-inflation of the value of the work that is actually being done, as at some point both of those will fall on their face (of which the latter cause may be EXACTLY what's causing this situation in the first place).


Ok, well i guess this is acceptable behavior from bid bizz to you.

Again, big bizz thanks you.

Are you drunk? Or do you just completely lack the ability to articulate a point with reasonable logic?

[kernie]

Are you drunk? Or do you just completely lack the ability to articulate a point with reasonable logic?[/QUOTE]


Your sideburns are silly , how's that for logic. You must be drunk to think otherwise.

Again, if you believe this is acceptable behavior from big bizz then you deserve the results. Live with it.

[Phrog_gunner]

People would definitely cry in the short term, it ain't exactly easy to transfer jobs on a whim. But in the bigger picture, it's the better alternative compared to a bailout or over-inflation of the value of the work that is actually being done, as at some point both of those will fall on their face (of which the latter cause may be EXACTLY what's causing this situation in the first place).



Are you drunk? Or do you just completely lack the ability to articulate a point with reasonable logic?


I will quote what you say but not answer any of your questions, nor add any facts or logic to the conversation, yet consider my point valid make personal insults about you not being able to comprehend my great intelligence.


Yes, you are right, my point was directed to long term, but either way its the choice of the worker to quit said job, or to take the lower wage (logically only long enough to find a better job). We have the freedom to choose, as opposed to other countries where you are told where to work.

[MrBluGruv]

Your sideburns are silly , how's that for logic. You must be drunk to think otherwise.

Again, if you believe this is acceptable behavior from big bizz then you deserve the results. Live with it.

1: the sideburns have long since been gone, but since that is a non-sequitur...

2: what does that have to do with ANYTHING?

3: where did I say that what this company was doing was OK? pretty sure I've iterated multiple times that my argument was against using this isolated incident as a precedence by which to judge the usefulness of all labor unions.

Any other judgements I've made I have already qualified by saying I don't have enough info about the situation and therefore is not meant as an absolute judgement on the situation (read: I'm not saying it is right or wrong because it doesn't make sense in the bigger picture given the limited amount of information given).


You are most certainly qualifying the moniker "lib-tard" for yourself right now...

[sailsmen]

In the Land of Liberalism non Liberals are Evil Idiots, personally attacking Evil Idiots is outing them, Gov't is Perfect, Wealth is not generated it is only distributed. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

[Bluerauder]

SkzV5AIK8iM

[tbone]

LMAO. Perfect.

[Phrog_gunner]

In the Land of Liberalism non Liberals are Evil Idiots, personally attacking Evil Idiots is outing them, Gov't is Perfect, Wealth is not generated it is only distributed. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Sailsmen, could you please refresh my memory and help me list all of the countries where the perfect goverment has created a large prosperous country/economy.

So far I have come up with:

USSR
Cuba
N Korea
Somalia
Greece

[jerrym3]

Mixed emotions here regarding unions.

My dad came from Italy with a 5th grade education, quote, "the 5th grade was the best three years of my life", unquote.)

He got a union job with the steelworkers/ALCOA in NJ and was able to save, buy a house, and live a decent lower middle class life.

ALCOA closed, and the job moved to Pa. I was too concerned with my life back then, but I can only imagine the turmoil in my family.

But, he got lesser paying jobs and when he died, he left his only child, me, with a comfortable life going forward.

I just want to do the same for my two kids, because the way things are going in this world (liberal or conservative), they are going to need everything I can leave them.

[sailsmen]

October 28, 2011 at 5:02 AM by Gant Team
Imagine a lobbying firm with immense power over your government. This organization influences how much the government pays employees, shapes legislation and regulation, and dictates how much citizens will pay in taxes.

At the same time, these lobbyists have been so good at what they do, they have convinced the government to collect their revenue, take money out of state workers’ paychecks against their will to fund the lobbying firm, pad their executives’ pockets, and bankroll the firm’s political endeavors.

Sound ludicrous? Welcome to the world of Pennsylvania’s government unions.

Pennsylvania is one of 28 states in which workers can be compelled to give part of their paycheck to a union just to keep their job. Moreover, even non-membership is costly. Those able to evade union coercion are still compelled to pay hundreds of dollars in fair share fees, or agency fees, to cover their supposed share of benefits gained from collective bargaining.

In contrast, right-to-work states give employees the freedom to choose whether or not to give a portion of their paycheck to a union. A recent poll commissioned by the Manhattan Institute finds that 72 percent of Pennsylvania voters support joining the other 22 right-to-work states.

In total, the commonwealth withheld and paid more than $33 million in dues and more than $7 million in fair share fees to 19 unions representing public employees in 2010. In most cases, the state also collects contributions for union political action committees (PACs) from workers’ paychecks at taxpayer expense. These PAC contributions are used to directly fund candidates for political office.

The Pennsylvania State Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, siphoned more than $55 million from the wallets of its 191,000 members and 5,600 agency-fee payers.

But if that weren’t enough, more than $2.5 million of that revenue paid for political fundraising, a gubernatorial debate video, election-related robocalls, lobbying, and other political activity. Union officials also made a $30,000 contribution to the left-leaning Keystone Research Center and gave $7,500 to Keystone Progress, a progressive advocacy organization, all with member dues, much of that collected by taxpayer-funded school district employees who deducted these payments using taxpayer-funded resources and time.

Sadly, a number of members and fee-payers would gladly keep their money if given the choice. But between state and national dues, full-time PSEA members owe almost $600 a year, and non-members more than two-thirds that, which may be used to support candidates and positions they oppose.

Union power also means union bosses clean up with hefty salaries, junkets to places like Seven Springs Mountain Ski Resort, and generous benefits—at the expense of the ordinary union members they are meant to protect. James Testerman, PSEA’s president, received $253,000 in total compensation in 2010. His salary was more than 2 1/2 times the average PSEA member salary. David Fillman, executive director at AFSCME Council 13, which represents public employees in state and local governments, made $206,000 in total compensation. In contrast, the average AFSCME 13 union member makes less than $40,000 a year. Leading the pack of well-padded union bosses is Wendell Young, IV, who represents liquor store clerks at UFCW 1776. He made $269,000 in 2010—equal to the salaries of nine UFCW members combined.

Furthermore, union policy goals are rarely in the best interest of their members. The PSEA endorses “last in-first out” policies, which require districts to lay off the most recently hired teachers first. That is, the longest serving union members keep their jobs regardless of performance while the “teacher of the year” would be let go if he has less seniority. The PSEA also lobbies against merit pay for teachers—which could reward effectiveness—to the detriment of good teachers and, more importantly, students. Union lobbying prevents good teachers from getting raises and bonuses.

The right to association is protected by the First Amendment and can be beneficial for employees. But the structure of the public sector lacks the market forces necessary to curb public unions’ outrageous demands at the bargaining table. While private sector unions have to compete over businesses’ limited profits, public sector unions compete unfairly over citizens’ tax dollars. The result is a union stranglehold over government and, essentially, taxpayers.

As Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in 1786, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” If that’s true, then Pennsylvania should ban government-aided dues deductions and PAC donation deductions, giving workers a say on whether or not to join a union and the right to choose where their money goes. Only then will workers enjoy genuine freedom over their working lives and conditions.

Cara Dochat is a research fellow and Priya Abraham a senior policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation

[sailsmen]

In Wisconsin the Teachers Union no longer selects the benefits company, which was always the Union's Benefits company. In some cases the savings is 50% by switching benefits to a non Union owned benefits company.



How can fringe benefits cost nearly as much as a worker's salary? Answer: collective bargaining..ROBERT M. COSTRELL

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:

•Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the same as in the private sector.

•State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.

•Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.

•Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The divergence is greater yet for health insurance:

•Health care for current employees. Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.

This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.


•Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in premiums after they retire.

As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.

For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is 36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees' benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is prefunded).

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions, plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe benefits reaches 74.2%.

What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees' contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a supplemental pension plan—again with no employee contribution. Finally, the employees' contribution (or lack thereof) to the cost of health insurance is also collectively bargained.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries—not benefits—seems entirely reasonable.

Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the University of Arkansas.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Green96]

The Muncie plant is only employing a fraction of the promised number right now because they are having a hard time getting qualified people. The local unemployment rate is well above the national average, but for many it pays more to stay home on unemployment.

They will have a hard time moving anything else to Muncie if they cannot get people to apply for jobs.

[Bluerauder]

The Muncie plant is only employing a fraction of the promised number right now because they are having a hard time getting qualified people. The local unemployment rate is well above the national average, but for many it pays more to stay home on unemployment.

They will have a hard time moving anything else to Muncie if they cannot get people to apply for jobs.

I read that in an associated article, too. The original plan was for 650 employees by 2012. So far they are only at about 150. Unemployment in that area is running at 9.8%. Something is definitely broken when sitting at home collecting unemployment is preferrable to working.

[kernie]

The Muncie plant is only employing a fraction of the promised number right now because they are having a hard time getting qualified people. The local unemployment rate is well above the national average, but for many it pays more to stay home on unemployment.

They will have a hard time moving anything else to Muncie if they cannot get people to apply for jobs.


I'm sure they will get their way in the long run. It's gonna get ugly around here soon, losta peeved people, myself included {not drunk, a lib-tard, a socialist, :shake:} even though i'm no fan of big unions. This is a new low in corporate behavior IMO but they don't care and it's both Hannity and billy-bob approved.

[Phrog_gunner]

I'm sure they will get their way in the long run. It's gonna get ugly around here soon, losta peeved people, myself included {not drunk, a lib-tard, a socialist, :shake:} even though i'm no fan of big unions. This is a new low in corporate behavior IMO but they don't care and it's both Hannity and billy-bob approved.

You could always increase what education you do have and move up in the world, hopefully far enough to get away from those kind of hijinks.

[Mike]

There will always be men and women willing to work for less and keep average working wages down. Let them work for "below poverty line", I'll pass. :rolleyes:

Well said :beer:

[justbob]

The Muncie plant is only employing a fraction of the promised number right now because they are having a hard time getting qualified people. The local unemployment rate is well above the national average, but for many it pays more to stay home on unemployment.

They will have a hard time moving anything else to Muncie if they cannot get people to apply for jobs.
Gee, ya THINK??? :rolleyes:

Hmm, lets move to cut costs, spend a year and MAJOR money rehabbing a plant, and scavenge up some fresh new sheeple with NO experience in this field for about .30 cents on the dollar. BUT, we still want a superior competing product, stay in deadline, get a big fat raise, and sell sell sell!

Do the people that make these decisions really hate their company, reputation, and their career that much?

Fact: A better treated and paid worker will produce more, make less costly mistakes, and VALUE his or her job or position more because they have a lot more to lose, less jobs that pay equal, and just might actually take pride in what they do because they picked a career and mastered it, union or not. The footsteperoners? Meh. "There's other stuff that i can find, no biggie, next!" No commitment, no care, no worries.

Of course, there will always be exceptions to the rule, I.E. Someone a little too comfy womfy in their position (God I love seeing them knocked down..) to the unemployed who would give anything to prove themselves once again. < Yes, there are MANY of those, not everyone likes living on a quarter of what they are accustomed too.

If I read this wrong, please forgive as I am not gonna sit and read every copy and paste.

[Taemian]

Fact: A better treated and paid worker will produce more, make less costly mistakes, and VALUE his or her job or position more because they have a lot more to lose, less jobs that pay equal, and just might actually take pride in what they do because they picked a career and mastered it, union or not.

Of course, there will always be exceptions to the rule, I.E. Someone a little too comfy womfy in their position (God I love seeing them knocked down..)
.

Not a FACT, unless you can provide stats to prove it.

I'm a 14 year Teamster, and yet I disagree with many of our policies. There is no incentive if you have a set wage (being either high or low), you need production bonuses for the individual. People get comfy womfy no matter what their level of pay wage; they generally only respond to the threat of actual job loss. Give them a fair base wage and let the cream rise to the top.

I "mastered" a goal early on and have a degree in Acoustical Engineering...yet I mostly drive a truck for a living because it works out so much better for the bottom line. My union had seniority legally taken away, and many concessions were made because the Local abused their power many years ago. I am proud to be a member of my union not so much for the history of it, but for how we are progressing within the system of checks and balances that were legally imposed upon us.

As it is, nothing is perfect but if you can't see a valid position on both sides of the fence, you need to adjust your view. Nothing is absolute.
(Except maybe absolute zero):D

[justbob]

Providing stats to prove anything is a complete waste as there is 63 sides to every story. Perhaps I used poor wording with saying fact, and I should have said "Common sense, and the majority of real word stats show...."

I am a union plumber, our incentive to work harder than the guy your working next to is very simple, laid off. Even when times were good, this is frowned upon at the union office, after a couple times, your gone, out, bye bye.

I know you are right as history has proven that in some unions, but that doesn't reflect all. Around here everyone is a "superman" out of perhaps too much personal pride, very competitive world here. I have yet to see anyone not picking up the slack in any field on my jobs. I know this isn't the case everywhere though, but it should be.

[jerrym3]

In the 60's, I was a member of the steelworkers for a short time.

Day 1, union rep comes to me and says, "you don't work hard. If they want you to work hard, come see me".

Later on, as a member of the UAW in a parts depot (midnight shift), we knew that once we hit a certain production level, we could go to sleep or, as I did, complete my night school college homework.

As a first line manager in an ILGWU shop, I was warned by the union rep to "play ball", or he'd get ten people to swear that I hit him, and I'd be out of a job.

But, as I posted earlier, unions were the main reason my dad made a decent living, and we were able to live a lower middle class life.

[CBT]

Fact: A better treated and paid worker will produce more, make less costly mistakes, and VALUE his or her job or position more because they have a lot more to lose, less jobs that pay equal, and just might actually take pride in what they do because they picked a career and mastered it, union or not.

I will agree with Bob, makes sense to me. But since this is another union thread I will have to once again make my "If unions were so great, they would be allowed in the military." statement.

[CBT]

In the 60's, I was a member of the steelworkers for a short time.

Day 1, union rep comes to me and says, "you don't work hard. If they want you to work hard, come see me".

Later on, as a member of the UAW in a parts depot (midnight shift), we knew that once we hit a certain production level, we could go to sleep or, as I did, complete my night school college homework.

As a first line manager in an ILGWU shop, I was warned by the union rep to "play ball", or he'd get ten people to swear that I hit him, and I'd be out of a job.

But, as I posted earlier, unions were the main reason my dad made a decent living, and we were able to live a lower middle class life.

I would have saved the liars the trouble and knocked his effin teeth down his throat. You could have instantly jumped up the chain by proving your worth when threatened. Hell, you could be the head of the unions today if you had applied yourself, lol.

[Blackened300a]

Since its all about copy and paste.


Labor Unions 101
MILITARY.COM
1
If you believe there's strength in numbers, then you probably understand why some 16 million American workers belong to labor unions.
The concept behind labor unions is straightforward: If you're an employee and you want your employer to make some sort of lasting change in your favor -- raising your salary or offering you broader benefits, for example -- you may have a better chance of getting what you want if you convince most or all of your coworkers to join together, or unionize, to ask for the same thing, perhaps even at the same time.
Unionization assumes employers will be more likely to listen to and make concessions in favor of workers who have banded together, because otherwise companies could face labor slowdowns or even strikes.
It's a simple enough idea, but the eventual effect is practically unavoidable: Labor unions and employers are, almost by definition, at odds. It only makes sense that labor unions are glorified by some, despised by others and viewed with bewilderment by many more. How can you decide if union membership is for you?
In Favor
Labor union supporters argue that unions have had a positive impact on American workers and the American economic system as a whole for decades. Proponents say that if it weren't for unions, many American workers wouldn't be able to count on now-commonplace benefits like:
The eight-hour workday with time-and-a-half for overtime work.
Higher wages. Union workers earn about 25 percent more each year than nonunion workers do, according to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), a federation composed of 65 labor unions in the United States.
Fringe benefits like health insurance, company pension and retirement plans, life and disability insurance, and reimbursement for continuing education expenses.
A safe work environment.
Formal procedures for working out grievances with supervisors or other members of a company's management team.
Perhaps that's why so many Americans belong to labor unions and why union representation has become part of such a wide variety of occupations in both the blue-collar and white-collar worlds. Bus drivers, doctors, teachers, electricians, engineers, postal workers, musicians, construction workers -- all of them and many others are union members.
Opposed
Labor unions have many vocal critics, too. Some opponents say the organizations are simply too big and inefficient to be of any practical benefit to their members, let alone the country as a whole.
Critics charge that sometimes labor unions' high-level leaders -- whether at the local, state or national level -- work only to carry out their own personal agendas, not to meet the needs of their groups' members. (Indeed, some labor unions have been investigated for corruption, because their leaders allegedly used union funds for their own purposes. And in a few cases, labor unions have been accused of having links with organized crime.)
Get Informed Before You Decide
It's no wonder many American workers are a little less than certain about their level of knowledge and their beliefs when it comes to labor unions. Sound familiar? If so:
Read About Labor Unions and Labor Issues
Learn more about labor unions and the history of the labor movement in America. Be sure to examine the issue from both the employee's and employer's point of view.
Talk to Union Leaders and Employers
Find out how the people leading labor unions in your area define what they do and why they do it. What positive and negative impacts have employers in your area seen as a result of union organization in their companies?
Look for Stories About Union-Management Conflict in the News
In the currently sluggish economy in particular, disagreements and more serious conflicts between unions and corporate management tend to make the news more often.

[duhtroll]

We can all copy and paste now??

COOL!

Tin Foil Hats
“In Soviet Russia, the hats tinfoil YOU!!!!!!!”
~ Russian Proverb on who knows what
A UAV Jammer, otherwise known as a Tin Foil Hat or Aluminum Foil Deflection Beanie (AFDB) s a condom covered with aluminum foil that is fitted over the head, much like a hat. The metallic properties of the aluminum casing deflect a number of rays that cause, but are not limited to, mind reading, mind control, and failure to recognize Fox News as the eternal source of all wisdom.
Contents [hide]
1 Tin Foil Hats
1.1 Use of a tinfoil hat
1.2 Construction of a tinfoil hat
1.3 Misconceptions about tinfoil hats
1.4 Ion Funnels and Mind-Reading Chips
1.4.1 Protection against alien mind-reading
1.4.2 Dorky
1.4.3 See Also
1.5 External Links
editTin Foil Hats

A basic guide to your best protection against MTDs(Mentally Transmitted Diseases).
In the 1960s, the intellectual revolutions occurring across the globe led to the massive spread of both thinking, and a second, less forseen effect: Mentally Transmitted Diseases. At the current time, there are an undocumented number of such diseases, including but not limited to Starbucks, Nascar, Mullets, Civil War reenactors, those Cialis ads where the happy couple have drag separate bathtubs down to the beach, and Sarah Palin
The current best protection against transmission of MTDs is to simply NOT THINK OR EXCHANGE THOUGHTS. However since young people nowadays have no shame, tin foil hats are the best defense available at the time.
editUse of a tinfoil hat

A tinfoil hat is simple and easy to use. Simply mold it into a round shape, and place it on your head like a hat or yarmulke. Wear it like this before engaging in interexchanging of ideas. The prescence of the tinfoil hat should protect you from most ideas, as it will deter all but a few ideas from being expressed to you. It is absolutely critical to keep the shiny side out. Wear the tinfoil hat at all times when you could be exposed to mind control ways beamed down to earth from orbital platforms under the control of the New World Order, Barack Obama (if you're conservative), Sarah Palin (if you're liberal) and/or Dick Cheney (if you've been living in a cave). It is safe to remove your tinfoil hat if you either live in an aluminum house or trailer, or you have completely covered your residence wth (shiny side out) aluminum foil.
If you do choose to aluminize your house, ignore nay-saying neighbors and cease and desist summonses from your homeowner's association, as they are just another part of the conspiracy.
editConstruction of a tinfoil hat

Construction of these tools is highly complex, and is not to be attempted by anyone other than professionals. Even the tiniest hole or weak point can lead to puncture, and contamination. If you have no choice, the best way to construct a tinfoil hat is to use multiple large pieces of either tin or aluminum foil and wrap them into a large, round, and concave cap about 1.5 times larger than is needed to fit on your head. From there, press the metal until it is the proper size and shape. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE FABRIC, AS THIS MAY NEGATE THE EFFECTS.
editMisconceptions about tinfoil hats

There are a number of things people believe about tin foil hats which are not true. Bollywood has a lot to answer for.
Fun Fact:Teaching your child how to fold paper airplanes may be fun but teaching them how to hold Tin Foil Hats can save them from the government.
editIon Funnels and Mind-Reading Chips

Ion Funnels streaming from the ESPN satellite, directed by the CIA to control your mind can be stopped by correct usage of a tinfoil hat (tfh).
If the CIA puts a mind-reading chip in your brain, a tinfoil hat will not stop it from either operating or broadcasting. It will however block all incoming signals which direct itself to the brain, and scramble outgoing broadcasts to the point where they are unusable by the CIA.
editProtection against alien mind-reading
Alien technology currently outstrips our tinfoil hat systems. Besides, they do it at night. The only reason they do it is to see our sexual fantasies anyway.
If you really want to protect yourself against this kind of thing, you should line your hat with Bounty Paper Towel. This makes the aliens simply see continual re-runs of British porn.
editDorky
Dorky aasir
editSee Also
Orbital Mind Control Lasers
editExternal Links

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie - Instructions on how to make and apply.
The League of Lady Conspiracists - A public service announcement.

[prchrman]

I do not hate on anyone making a good living but to think you can keep making >$72K a year for a job that does not require a college degree is pie in the sky for most American workers. About $16 an hour is what workers at my facility make and they are the highest paid in the area.

[omarauder]

Private industry unions are just about extinct anyway. To go on a strike these days, they'll shut 'er down and move the factory overseas where they will work for $2.50 a day. I hear locomotive diesel engines are being overhauled in China now....
Down the road, once all manufacturing is overseas you may have to go to your possible enemies and beg them to supply your armed forces with equipment, since we won't have the capability to manufacture our own stuff...

[justbob]

I do not hate on anyone making a good living but to think you can keep making >$72K a year for a job that does not require a college degree is pie in the sky for most American workers. About $16 an hour is what workers at my facility make and they are the highest paid in the area.

That's exactly why I have always argued to not judge all unions the same. There is so many vast differences from one to the next, not all are corrupt, but some are, they are the bad apples of society that give us all a bad name. Our books are gone over by the goverment quarterly because we are an organization. True? I don't know, its just what we are told. I certainatly hope so, it only seems right givin the past corruption of so many.

I make a whole lot more than your for mentioned example, but we are required to have college credits, albiet not many, but five years of part time school and yearly continuing ed (I won't argue that being a joke) But we make our own selves worth more than other members by taking night courses for free and having more certifications than them. Just welding certs for example expire every six months and there is something like nine of them. You aren't required to hold any one of those, but if a job comes up needing a worker with a medgas cert, then I just jumped two hundred guys in line and got a job. Pay more? Nope. I just care about my career so I take it seriously.

I'm just greatful that I got into a good union, it was very hard to sign up as I too hated everything they stood for by watching the news and only hearing bad things.

[Blackened300a]

That's exactly why I have always argued to not judge all unions the same. There is so many vast differences from one to the next, not all are corrupt, but some are, they are the bad apples of society that give us all a bad name. Our books are gone over by the goverment quarterly because we are an organization. True? I don't know, its just what we are told. I certainatly hope so, it only seems right givin the past corruption of so many.

I make a whole lot more than your for mentioned example, but we are required to have college credits, albiet not many, but five years of part time school and yearly continuing ed (I won't argue that being a joke) But we make our own selves worth more than other members by taking night courses for free and having more certifications than them. Just welding certs for example expire every six months and there is something like nine of them. You aren't required to hold any one of those, but if a job comes up needing a worker with a medgas cert, then I just jumped two hundred guys in line and got a job. Pay more? Nope. I just care about my career so I take it seriously.

I'm just greatful that I got into a good union, it was very hard to sign up as I too hated everything they stood for by watching the news and only hearing bad things.

We have the same thing here in NYC. You have to take numerous tests and be certified to get into a union trade not like the old days when you are grandfathered into getting a book because of who you are related to or who you know. We also have prevailing wages across the board which means that the pay rate is the same for all skill workers so the shop owner can't cut the labor pay to help win a city construction bid.
Same goes for trucking and what work I do. I haul a load and make a delivery I get paid on a lower competitive pay scale. If I work a job site it's a higher pay scale and a different benefits package because the work I'm performing is a lot more labor intensive.

[jerrym3]

I would have saved the liars the trouble and knocked his effin teeth down his throat. You could have instantly jumped up the chain by proving your worth when threatened. Hell, you could be the head of the unions today if you had applied yourself, lol.

Maybe things might be different today, but back in the 70's, rather than getting into a labor dispute and a possible union walkout, a company would rather dump a no-name first line manager.

With my wife expecting our first kid, there was no way I was going to risk it; but, I never had to make that choice.

Funny how things changed, though.

A few months later, the same union rep tells me on the QT that one of my female workers thinks that I'm coming down too hard on her, and she was thinking of posting a grievance.

I took notice, made the necessary adjustments, no problems.

[CBT]

Maybe things might be different today, but back in the 70's, rather than getting into a labor dispute and a possible union walkout, a company would rather dump a no-name first line manager.

With my wife expecting our first kid, there was no way I was going to risk it; but, I never had to make that choice.

Funny how things changed, though.

A few months later, the same union rep tells me on the QT that one of my female workers thinks that I'm coming down too hard on her, and she was thinking of posting a grievance.

I took notice, made the necessary adjustments, no problems.

Can't fault you for looking out for your family I reckon. We had a female complain to HR about stuff last month. Amazingly, I was the only person NOT interviewed, lol. Which caused me to think it was about me. (Not that I really cared.) Anyway, long story short, one guy was asked to stop purpously farting out loud when the other employee is inside the trailer. So now he opens the door and hangs his ass outside and rips them off, which gets more attention now than it did before. I don't know all the details of the complaint but there is only so much HR can do. We have unions here, which is fine and dandy, but they are not for me. I don't know that a union could help stop someone from ripping ass in mixed company, but it would be funny to see the outcome, I guess they'd have to have an arbitrator step in and negotiate some sort of terms? I'm not familiar with grievences and union stuff. If they decide to relocate one of them, I'll take the ripper over the whiner every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Also, the union trade schools sound fairly awesome from what guspech and justbob have told me, so I will give unions credit for that stuff. I assume that is one of the things dues go towards?

[guspech750]

Unions FTW. Nonunion FTW. They both have their places. And they both are in some areas they shouldn't be.

It's time to stop hating on the American worker be it union or nonunion. It's time for the rest of the world to catch up to good pay & living standards.


---
- Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

[justbob]

I don't know that a union could help stop someone from ripping ass in mixed company, but it would be funny to see the outcome, I guess they'd have to have an arbitrator step in and negotiate some sort of terms?

Now that's funny right there! Just opens the door huh? To answer the question though, all grievances are grievances. You would be scolded a little and sent back (while they laughed hysterically behind your back) but a second time, probably a hefty fine or give you your walking papers. The do look into both sides quite well so I've seen just to make sure the accuser isn't just starting B.S.


Also, the union trade schools sound fairly awesome from what guspech and justbob have told me, so I will give unions credit for that stuff. I assume that is one of the things dues go towards?
Correct. So I guess it isn't free when you look at it that way. :o: I've been lazy too. I need to get back in and get my certs. Just after five years, its hard to return.

[CBT]

Now that's funny right there! Just opens the door huh? To answer the question though, all grievances are grievances. You would be scolded a little and sent back (while they laughed hysterically behind your back) but a second time, probably a hefty fine or give you your walking papers. The do look into both sides quite well so I've seen just to make sure the accuser isn't just starting B.S.


Correct. So I guess it isn't free when you look at it that way. :o: I've been lazy too. I need to get back in and get my certs. Just after five years, its hard to return.

Get your ass back in class, lol. Speaking of, I just signed up for the Spring I and II terms, I'm so sick of school. Shite, I need to bounce the Louisville dates off the finals dates.....

[Green96]

Well, the story finally hit the local paper.

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20120108/NEWS01/201080323/Jobs-from-Canada-coming-Muncie-?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|Front page%20DontMiss (http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20120108/NEWS01/201080323/Jobs-from-Canada-coming-Muncie-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cimg%7 CFrontpage%20DontMiss)

[sailsmen]

I haven't worked by the hour since I was 18. Why let someonelse dictate how much I am paid?
Most unions dictate the worst worker gets paid the same as the best worker.

Most unions represent the Union and not the worker. Unions are big business, in most cases no different than a labor provider.

In most cases if you have a problem with pay or just about anthing you are required to take it up with the union.

The beef should be with the union because that is who you work for.

If somonelse can do it for less than what the union offers the employer should hire them. If they don't they will go out of business.

Do you walk around handing out money to people becasue they are employed by a particular group? IF you do then you will go broke.

Everything I buy is based on the value it gives me in exchange.

[guspech750]

I haven't worked by the hour since I was 18. Why let someonelse dictate how much I am paid?
Most unions dictate the worst worker gets paid the same as the best worker.

Most unions represent the Union and not the worker. Unions are big business, in most cases no different than a labor provider.

In most cases if you have a problem with pay or just about anthing you are required to take it up with the union.

The beef should be with the union because that is who you work for.

If somonelse can do it for less than what the union offers the employer should hire them. If they don't they will go out of business.

Do you walk around handing out money to people becasue they are employed by a particular group? IF you do then you will go broke.

Everything I buy is based on the value it gives me in exchange.

As I agree with what you said.

Is it not the employer who gave said employee x amount of $$$$ per hour or salary for doing said job in a good manner only to be back stabbed by said employer and being told you make too much $$$$$. That is where I am glad I have my unions support. As I don't agree with most of my unions thoughts or wants, and they know this and usually don't like when I speak my mind.

I can only speak from my experiences in the construction and drilling contractor fields. But most owners/employers are dirtbags and will not hesitate to not give an employee a paycheck for said work week.

Then people will say. Well find a different job. Guess what. Most of us in our field love what we do. And when most owners/employers are shady, choices are slim. When one loves their job and loves living where they do. Then employees what to protect their way of life. Union or no union. I love my job. I love operating drill rigs and drilling wells and rock coring. I quit 3+ years of college because when it came time to do an internship. I didn't want to quit what I love doing everyday. I get to play in a big sandbox everyday and play with big Tonka toys. And if it means I had to join and union. So be it.


And the way my employer and us employees communicate. We 99% of the work out our differences with each other. We just choose to leave the union nonsense out of it.

---
- Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

[MrBluGruv]

If somonelse can do it for less than what the union offers the employer should hire them. If they don't they will go out of business.

I agree with your post 100% except for this above statement^

While I think I know what you are saying, I also think it deserves further detail, because this exact situation is why we have so many illegal and migrant workers doing jobs here instead of out-of-work Americans (well, at least in terms of the out-of-work Americans who aren't whiny layabouts.)

[Hadamustang1]

working today on Sunday... Thanks for the double time.. Union FTW

[justbob]

As I agree with what you said.

Is it not the employer who gave said employee x amount of $$$$ per hour or salary for doing said job in a good manner only to be back stabbed by said employer and being told you make too much $$$$$. That is where I am glad I have my unions support. As I don't agree with most of my unions thoughts or wants, and they know this and usually don't like when I speak my mind.

I can only speak from my experiences in the construction and drilling contractor fields. But most owners/employers are dirtbags and will not hesitate to not give an employee a paycheck for said work week.

Then people will say. Well find a different job. Guess what. Most of us in our field love what we do. And when most owners/employers are shady, choices are slim. When one loves their job and loves living where they do. Then employees what to protect their way of life. Union or no union. I love my job. I love operating drill rigs and drilling wells and rock coring. I quit 3+ years of college because when it came time to do an internship. I didn't want to quit what I love doing everyday. I get to play in a big sandbox everyday and play with big Tonka toys. And if it means I had to join and union. So be it.


And the way my employer and us employees communicate. We 99% of the work out our differences with each other. We just choose to leave the union nonsense out of it.

---
- Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

Totally agree, especially with the last paragraph. I just negotiated myself a free van and gas for always putting in that extra little bit. To even top that more, there was a very sizeable bonus in my bank account that same day he handed me the keys. < Union had ZERO to do with this. If you don't play the system and give here or there, you lose. If your lucky you will recoupe your gives with a take someday like I did, or in this economy, I should say if you don't play you lose your job period.

[Blackened300a]

I haven't worked by the hour since I was 18. Why let someonelse dictate how much I am paid?
Most unions dictate the worst worker gets paid the same as the best worker.

You also have a apprenticeship and a probation period which you receive less pay. You don't carry your weight, you are shown the door. You slack off or cause a work stoppage, you are out of the union. Your reputation also proceeds you in this business.

Most unions represent the Union and not the worker. Unions are big business, in most cases no different than a labor provider.

Agree and disagree. Sure they are a big business, they have to generate the money to be able to support the workers pensions, annuity, healthcare coverage for life, training, life insurance, and even provide lawyers for free. If I ever get married, my wife and family would be covered under my healthcare coverage. That money don't just appear. Its our membership dues that support this system.

In most cases if you have a problem with pay or just about anthing you are required to take it up with the union.

The beef should be with the union because that is who you work for.

You take it up with your employer, they signed a contract to be a union shop, they start playing around with the pay scale then they are in breach of contract and you can go to arbitration between the shop and the union.
Union shops know the deal and they don't need a strike or a walkout on their hands.

If somonelse can do it for less than what the union offers the employer should hire them. If they don't they will go out of business.

Do you walk around handing out money to people becasue they are employed by a particular group? IF you do then you will go broke.

Everything I buy is based on the value it gives me in exchange.
Hiring Union labor means you have experienced and skilled workers on the job. You get what you pay for. Union jobs are proven to be safer, better built and built on schedule. You can hire a crew of day laborers to paint your house, but building a high rise in the city I'm sure you would agree that skilled labor would be the only way to go.


.........................

[PonyUP]

Unions are like any other profession, there are good eggs and there are bad ones. Out of respect to our members that bust their ass and are part of a union, we should stop bagging on them, just my two cents


Pony seal of Approval

[duhtroll]

This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

You might as well ask some members on here to stop breathing.

All unions are guilty for the offenses of a select few individuals in specific circles. Spend any amount of time here and it becomes painfully obvious. ;)

It is when the double standard is applied to other professions (usually in defense of big business) that it annoys the rest of us.



Unions are like any other profession, there are good eggs and there are bad ones. Out of respect to our members that bust their ass and are part of a union, we should stop bagging on them, just my two cents


Pony seal of Approval

[Taemian]

I will agree with Bob, makes sense to me. But since this is another union thread I will have to once again make my "If unions were so great, they would be allowed in the military." statement.

Hmm...yet they ARE allowed in the law enforcement profession? I think you may be missing the fact that federal agencies are for the most part denied unions, yet state/muni depts have representation. That has nothing to do with the members not wanting union representation, but not being allowed to have collective barganing agreements in place.

Your area may differ, but our federal services (RCMP/CBSA etc) are banned from unionizing, while smaller municipal forces who choose it (as well as fire/parmedics) have union representation.

Any info on the status of your DEA/ATF/US Marshals/Air Marshals being allowed to unionize would be welcomed, as here it is not allowed.

I, too, was told to "slow down, you're making us look bad." early in my membership. I wasn't there to make friends, I was there to make money and build a career. Those smart enough to latch onto me have added value to their tenure; the others types are in the dregs. You can always make yourself more useful by being a shop steward or getting involve with the health plan/pension trustee position or anything else in the executive.