Unions in Michigan

[Baaad GN]

Well I have been watching tape on Fox New's and was surprized all the fighting (actual) that went on at their State House or right to work issue. The other TV channels never showed it! Wonder why? Have you guy's seen it?
Just wondering!

[nh muscle]

I belong to a union and dont have to pay dues. How it should be. s

[justbob]

Haven't seen it Ed, but I could only imagine..

As for dues. Mine was always 3.5%, because of all the lay offs since 08, they finally increased it to 5%. Big deal. Where else could I ever make what I make? My brother in law has always cried about his, I told him to quit. Go find the greener grass! 😏


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[guspech750]

I have not seen it. But I have been reading about it on The Chicago Garage.


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

[GAMike]

The dues don't bother me, its what the dues are primarily used for that does..... A few people at the top financing candidates, more than a few of their dues paying members don't vote for......

[tbone]

Well I have been watching tape on Fox New's and was surprized all the fighting (actual) that went on at their State House or right to work issue. The other TV channels never showed it! Wonder why? Have you guy's seen it?
Just wondering!


Of course. Union thug punches right to work man repeatedly for merely asking him and his friends why they support the union while they all are screaming profanity and tearing down right to work tent with some women and old people in it. Left wing media ignores it. Some things never change and never will.:beatnik:

[cruzer]

I was a member of the Board of Directors of the Allied Pilot's Association representing the pilots and flight engineers of American Airlines for over 10 years. It was a single company union and we did not have membership ratification---all members of the Board, Negotiating Commitee and Legal Staff were all active Line Pilots who flew the line, under the contract they signed, for about 90 % of their time. The only time we got paid time-off was during negotiations. The President, V/P, and CFO were paid $ 1000 a month extra during these times. There was no Strike Fund. I don't remember what our dues % was , but it was small. On the last day of every month, the company transferred cash to the Union amounting to 11% of the Pilot Total Payroll. This money was deposited into Individual Retirement Accounts, paid the daily operating expenses, Pilot Life Insurance and Disability Insurance and one Convention a year (the Company paid 50% of the Convention costs). We had the best contracts in the industry and allowed American the flexibility to win millions of dollars in contracts that the Air Line Pilot's Assoc. couldn't get pilot ratification in time to meet the contract deadlines---it was a win-win operation. In the mid-80s, the founding members started to retire and the new leaders gave in to membership ratification----we never got a contract after that without long and bitter negotiations. American Airlines became a part of AMR Corp. (which airline revenues financed ) The rest of the story you all know--the "Bean Counters " , with no experience in running an airline, took over AMR and our union began fighting among themselves---nobody with pilot experience was running the show . Extreme distrust developed between the Company and all their Unions when Corporate Bonuses took away any reason for the rank and file to give 110%--that's where we are now.
I don't have any answers and I know union leadership diverted a lot of worker's money. "In the Good Old Days" we had strict government regulation, everybody worked under the same rules and there were penalties if you didn't comply---Deregulation ended all that and led to the collapse of the entire airline industry, as it has in every other deregulated field of business. The cost to the American Worker has been devastating.
And now ,my opinion, looking back over 84 years of living. American Business is incapable of regulating itself--you cannot have a viable economy unless you have a strong Middle Class, made up of highly-skilled Labor, manufacturing quality products for the workers to buy and for us to Export. You cannot pay off a Deficit without having these Workers, getting decent wages and paying a fair share of the load--a tax increase---but, you can't pay taxes if you aren't working--bring the Good Jobs Home so our kids can look forward to something better than low-paying servitude.
And just remember, you don't kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs--you get rid of the rotten eggs--use your Constitutional Right to remove those delinquents in Washington through the use of the Re-call Vote--then elect someone to Congress who cares more about you than they do about "The Party" . If the voter's dont get their heads out of the dark place and wake up--our kids don't stand a chance.


Well--I've had my rant--feels goooood. Now for a good nites sleep A Tired Old Man

[Fosters]

. .

[Curless]

I live here, it was pretty bad. If you as a working person in this country can look at Michigan's economy and honestly tell me the Unions are helping us you are BLIND! Unions are what got into this mess and continue to keep us where we are. Over paid fat azzes that make up rules so anyone can F off all day on the job, you go to pick up parts and ten people who are perfectly capable of running a high low to get us on our way but oh no, thats not my job, you have to have a driver for that...ten guys watching one dig a hole in a construction zone, sleeping on the job cause your "rate" is done for the day...these are just a few of the issues in this country...I have toured many of the GM plants here ion Michigan, and in Kentucky and they are all the same. Its a JOKE, if I walked in my shop and saw my guy sleeping I'd throw his azz on the street. NO UNION should be allowed to rape a company the way they do.

[guspech750]

Here is what I wrote on The Chicago Garage. I just copied and pasted it. I think unions are still needed mostly in the construction industry as there are A LOT of crooked and shady contractors out there that will do ANYTHING to an employee. I've seen it and I've heard it.


I can tell you this. I'm in the Operating Engineers Local 150. There are some things I really hate and some things I really like.
When we were nonunion I busted my ass off to learn the most and be the best driller we have. And I succeeded in that. When we went union. Same principles apply to me.

(our company forced us, we didn't vote or sign cards until the morning we were told we were going to be a union shop)

I think unions have there place in the labor movement today. Mostly in the construction industry I think. As there are A LOT of shady and crooked employers/contractors out there who will take it apon themselves to jerk around an employee, take advantage of, unsafe working conditions and such or not even pay the employee.


Plus a big benefit for me as a member of local 150. I have the tools available to me to learn and practice on every piece of construction equipment imaginable, welding, diesels, technicians who inspect concrete, steel structures, cranes, CDL's, HAZMAT, MSHA and much much more. There are even classes that credits are transferable to colleges too.

I just wish unions in general were not so ****ing greedy and pushy though. It sure leaves a black eye apon it's members.


I've been drilling for the same company for 17 years now and have been union 8 of those. We work year round then and work year round now. I've never been laid off. I continue to be the best I can be. We do not get payed vacations. Our employer puts in X amount of dollars per hours worked into my vacation fund. I will get a check the following year totaling what amounts to about 2-21/2 weeks of payed vacation and no payed sick days or personal days.


Let's be realistic here. There are a ton of lazy non union and union workers.


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

[kernie]

If you were not in a union you would be blasting the crap out of them, be honest.

A lefty on one issue, lol.

[guspech750]

If you were not in a union you would be blasting the crap out of them, be honest.

A lefty on one issue, lol.

Nope. Never cared about unions when we where nonunion and still don't care now. I do have a problem with people on both sides acting like animals.


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

[kernie]

Nope. Never cared about unions when we where nonunion and still don't care now. I do have a problem with people on both sides acting like animals.


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

OK, my bad.

We have union and non-union working side by side where i work, the attitude of the union guys is funny, i stay out of it but it's something to behold!

:beer:

[Curless]

Nope. Never cared about unions when we where nonunion and still don't care now. I do have a problem with people on both sides acting like animals.


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

I agree. I have not worked for a union, never liked the thought of paying someone to defend weather or not I do my job correctly.

[sailsmen]

Does Freedom of Association mean Freedom From Association?
In some cases the Unions have become what they were formed to oppose.
Most Unions are non-tax paying entities and are not subject to many of the campaign finance laws and anti trust laws.
In WI when the law was changed eliminating the franchise the Union owned benefit co had in many cases the premiums were cut in half. I saw a group split off from a union to form their own local union and the sole issue was the excessive benefits charge by the union.
Follow the money! For some examples of the extraordinary pay some of the Union bosses take from their members;
mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/13/v-print/148607/hefty-salaries-perks-for-union.html

[Vortex]

As union membership declines over time due to a variety of reasons workers wages and benefits will certainly decline. Shareholders could care less about workers.

[sailsmen]

As union membership declines over time due to a variety of reasons workers wages and benefits will certainly decline. Shareholders could care less about workers.

What an incorrect statement! Shareholders care about their investment. For the vast majority of companies the greatest asset is the employees. Have you ever owned a company that you also worked at?

[Fosters]

. .

[jerrym3]

What an incorrect statement! Shareholders care about their investment. For the vast majority of companies the greatest asset is the employees. Have you ever owned a company that you also worked at?

Are you serious? You sound like a Human Resources manual.

Then why, when things go south, are employee cutbacks and "downsizing" the first thing on the agenda? Just about everyone I know has been downsized, some more than once.

If profits drop, or a company can get the same production with less employees (ie, automation), the employee goes, the robot stays.

Shareholders, and I am one, care about stock appreciation/dividends, and if lowering expenses can increase profits, win/win.

Now, that may be different in mom/pop organizations, but not in larger companies.

Someone posted that IT workers do well in this environment with regards to off shoring.

Not in my last company, a major Wall Street firm.

Tech centers, not brokers, were off shored quicker than you could say "supercharger", and this was before the big slowdown.

And, I hope those who think that unions are pure evil never get into a position where, as you age, you find yourself becoming too high priced. You then run the greater risk of becoming "downsized", as long as the company stays within certain guidelines.

And, before I hear all the " well, the older worker had the opportunity to move up the food chain..........."

Simple answer, company structures are a pyramid. Not everyone gets to the next level.

Yes, unions got too top heavy and greedy, and I've been both a union worker (UAW and Steelworkers) and a manager of union people before I got into IT, where I managed vendors comprised of union and non-union workers. (But, has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands. Now, my Wall Street bonus, and that of my department's co-workers, was nowhere near that, so someone else did real well, about 500K worth....each!)

But, without collective bargaining, it's a one sided ballgame, wages will continue to remain low, and the middle class necessary to get us out of this hole will not rebound.

[na svt]

Unions need to go away. I supervised union and non-union employees when I was in the military, most were as hard working as the next guy but there were a few employees that took full advantage of what the union offered. Oh, and the union president worked for me and it was negotiated in the union contract that he would recieve a "superior" rating on his annual appraisal. The union stewards were the lazy asses and complainers that didn't want to work. They were allowed a few hours of "Union" time to conduct business of which they did none, but they did learn how to play darn good game of spades.

The bargaining union employees did not have to pay dues, but the AFGE (Armed Forced Gov't Employee union) did have to represent them in the event of a grievence or unfair labor practice and this erked the **** out the Union president.

In my experience the only thing I noticed the Union accomplishing reduced worker productivity and the pissing off of management and hard working employees.

There is no need for a union these days, plain and simple. If you don't want to work for a company, find other employment.

The foriegn owned car, vehicle assembly plants in the US are not union and they pay quite well.

[Micahdogg]

Pro union here. I think the UAW is a special kind of animal and not a good reference for "unions" in general. I to have to wonder the companies who complain about what union members get (ahem, GM) - what were you doing during negotiations? How does GM get a free pass to burn money in any way seen fit, then complain about posh UAW gigs while they file for bankruptsy. It's not the UAW's fault that GM acquired Hummer while gas prices skyrocketed.

I also agree that businesses can't be trusted to look out for workers. They exist primarily to make profit, and they often do things they don't want to do in an effort to remain competitive with each other. You don't see unions competing to "out lazy" each other. If businesses could be trusted to treat employees well, we wouldn't have so many illegal aliens subcontracting here for pennies and we wouldn't be outsourcing cheap foreign labor. That should be proof enough that wages will go down (as they are currently 3% lower in right to work states).

Did anyone consider the effects of non union employees who benefit from prevailing wage going away? Everyone will be working for less. As long as millionares can't be taxed one extra penny to help the country, I don't see why your average $50K/year union employee needs to work for less. Unions need overhauled, they don't need to be busted up.

P.S. Anyone who is anti "free stuff" and anti "freeloading" shouldn't support right to work terms were employees take advantage of collective bargaining from dues paying members - FOR FREE.

[J-MAN]

I belong to a union and dont have to pay dues. How it should be. s

Please splain this!!

[na svt]

Pay and benefits should be established by the employer and not some outside organization that adds cost to the end product.

[sailsmen]

Are you serious? You sound like a Human Resources manual.

Then why, when things go south, are employee cutbacks and "downsizing" the first thing on the agenda? Just about everyone I know has been downsized, some more than once.

If profits drop, or a company can get the same production with less employees (ie, automation), the employee goes, the robot stays.

Shareholders, and I am one, care about stock appreciation/dividends, and if lowering expenses can increase profits, win/win.

Now, that may be different in mom/pop organizations, but not in larger companies.

Someone posted that IT workers do well in this environment with regards to off shoring.

Not in my last company, a major Wall Street firm.

Tech centers, not brokers, were off shored quicker than you could say "supercharger", and this was before the big slowdown.

And, I hope those who think that unions are pure evil never get into a position where, as you age, you find yourself becoming too high priced. You then run the greater risk of becoming "downsized", as long as the company stays within certain guidelines.

And, before I hear all the " well, the older worker had the opportunity to move up the food chain..........."

Simple answer, company structures are a pyramid. Not everyone gets to the next level.

Yes, unions got too top heavy and greedy, and I've been both a union worker (UAW and Steelworkers) and a manager of union people before I got into IT, where I managed vendors comprised of union and non-union workers. (But, has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands. Now, my Wall Street bonus, and that of my department's co-workers, was nowhere near that, so someone else did real well, about 500K worth....each!)

But, without collective bargaining, it's a one sided ballgame, wages will continue to remain low, and the middle class necessary to get us out of this hole will not rebound.

I lived through Katrina the largest disaster to ever strike the USA and one of the largest to ever strike any where in the World. There were thousands of examples of employers both large and small borrowing money not knowing if they would ever open to pay their employees who were not working full pay for months.
A company I owned a small part of borrowed money not knowing if we would ever reopen to pay 100% in full every employee who had been with us a year. Those that were less than a year were very few in a transient job due to the nature of the work. We borrowed even more money to open a location in another city and those that could at their choice, every position was filled by employees from the old closed location, worked at the new location. It was 6 months before the old location reopened. The new location was a big money loser and cost us a fortune. This was repeated by thousands of employers. Why? Because employees are a company's greatest asset!
How could this possibly be done in a disaster area with all the restrictions and requirements found in a Union Collective bargaining agreement? It was because the agreements were ignored because people as a result of losing every thing they had and also those around them losing every thing they had they wanted a return to normalcy, the biggest return to normalcy is to go back to work. I spent a significant amount of time for free helping others, employers and employees including Union employees navigate through the maze of Gov't requirements to get relief for their families. Why? If no one is working I won't be working either.
If a company is not profitable it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. Why are employees cut back first because being the greatest asset they are what costs the most.
Some Unions abuse their Members by over charging them with overhead on the pensions/benefits, paying themselves excessive salaries, putting their family members on the payroll and out right stealing the members money.
When you add in the dues, the working restrictions, the excessive benefit charges and the barring of an employer's ability to pay a bonus or give a raise many are far better off with out a union.*
*"The average UAW autoworker at the 'Big 3' makes roughly a little less than $60,000 a year and the average non-union autoworker in the U.S. makes roughly $52,000 and considering that most of the nonunion plants are in lower cost of living areas, I would say that both are quite competitive with one another. Basically no one is getting rich who is a general worker at any U.S. auto manufacturing plant." Detroit Free Press http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_au tomakers_bonuses_boost_wages_i n_us_plants_as_detroit_car_com panies_struggle.aspx

[Marauderjack]

Free Enterprise and good ole CAPITALISM works and UNIONS are nothing more than another GOVERNMENT (type) agency that sucks the life from our COUNTRY!!:argue:

I spent most of my working life in TEXTILES & CHEMICALS....just look what UNIONS and the DAMN EPA has done to those industries!!:mad2:

[sailsmen]

" But has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands." I suggest you go do their job and make the money they are making. Better yet do it better than they do and make even more than they are making.
Drew ain't doing too good at the Saints so maybe I will apply for his job!;)

[Micahdogg]

Free Enterprise and good ole CAPITALISM works and UNIONS are nothing more than another GOVERNMENT (type) agency that sucks the life from our COUNTRY!!:argue:

I spent most of my working life in TEXTILES & CHEMICALS....just look what UNIONS and the DAMN EPA has done to those industries!!:mad2:

LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?

[sailsmen]

LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?

FYI - The EPA also has the right to regulate what you and every animal are exhaling.
Salazar, Sec of Interior, forged a report to shut down an entire industry.

[nh muscle]

If i was in thr tent being attacked thete would be 22 45 cal rounds discharged. Oops!!

[justbob]

News flash. There is no such thing as a lazy union construction worker in my state, at least since 08. There is the best of the best doing more now than they ever did and family employed thru family shops..

Rules? What a laughing stock. If any of you actually knew real world work vs. what you know by reading up on bylaws you would back off. I simply can't think of one rule that isn't twisted and smashed. (It's work or sit right?)

Breaks? Can't say I know of any that aren't federal LAW. Not that I take them.

Can't be fired??? WOW really? Ever hear of laying off? Besides, what shop fires anyone union or non? NONE. No risk in laying off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cat in the hat]

Free Enterprise and good ole CAPITALISM works < yak yak yak > ! :mad2:

Right - when MANAGEMENT wants to make the absolute maximum profit from their product or service, it's "good ole CAPITALISM" ! Yay ! Wave that flag !
But when LABOR wants to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, they're UN-AMERICAN ! goll-dern COMMUNISTS ! Boo !

You can't have it both ways. The abuses of unrestrained, robber-baron capitalism CAUSED the Organized Labor Movement in this country.

Yes, Unions aren't perfect, that's for sure. But they're a lot better than what they replaced - company towns, plantation sharecropping, sweatshops, indentured servitude, child labor, prison labor . . .
. . . Like they have in China. (see below)

"Right to Work" = "Right to Work for Less Money."
Union states are going that way to try to stop hemorrhaging jobs to lower-paying Non-Union states. Lower-paying Non-Union states are trying to compete with even lower-paying countries, like China. The "global economy" is slowly, but surely, having a levelling effect on wages ; the ultimate result will be that everybody, everywhere, will eventually make what a Pakistani ****-shoveler is willing to work for. Otherwise, why shouldn't he get that job ?

my :twocents:

[jerrym3]

" But has anybody looked at the average bonus on Wall Street? It's in the hundreds of thousands." I suggest you go do their job and make the money they are making. Better yet do it better than they do and make even more than they are making.
Drew ain't doing too good at the Saints so maybe I will apply for his job!;)

The point was that there's b****ing about union management salaries and union benefits, but nobody is b****ing about Wall Street bonuses. Why not?

We paid for the union management salaries (if we bought the products their members made) and, if we have stocks, mutual funds, or a 401K/IRA in the market, we paid for the Wall Street bonuses also.

I guess you think it's OK that even though Wall Street bonuses were reduced, they remained ridiculously high, while other Wall Street workers from the same companies were walked out the door in droves by Security?

What's better for the USA and our economy? One guy getting a million dollar bonus, or 14 people getting a 70K+ salary? Are all those Wall Street guys job creators?

Sure, they will purchase stuff with their huge bonuses, but not as much stuff as the 14 workers would have purchased. And, there's a multiplier effect as the 14 employed people retain their jobs and spend money, that turns into wages for other workers.

And, what about those unemployed folks losing their homes because they can't make the payments? Good plan for the housing market?

As for me doing their job, thanks for the terrific, well thought out suggestion. However, I am VERY comfortably retired, thank you.

[jerrym3]

I lived through Katrina the largest disaster to ever strike the USA and one of the largest to ever strike any where in the World. There were thousands of examples of employers both large and small borrowing money not knowing if they would ever open to pay their employees who were not working full pay for months.
A company I owned a small part of borrowed money not knowing if we would ever reopen to pay 100% in full every employee who had been with us a year. Those that were less than a year were very few in a transient job due to the nature of the work. We borrowed even more money to open a location in another city and those that could at their choice, every position was filled by employees from the old closed location, worked at the new location. It was 6 months before the old location reopened. The new location was a big money loser and cost us a fortune. This was repeated by thousands of employers. Why? Because employees are a company's greatest asset!
How could this possibly be done in a disaster area with all the restrictions and requirements found in a Union Collective bargaining agreement? It was because the agreements were ignored because people as a result of losing every thing they had and also those around them losing every thing they had they wanted a return to normalcy, the biggest return to normalcy is to go back to work. I spent a significant amount of time for free helping others, employers and employees including Union employees navigate through the maze of Gov't requirements to get relief for their families. Why? If no one is working I won't be working either.
If a company is not profitable it goes out of business and everyone loses their job. Why are employees cut back first because being the greatest asset they are what costs the most.
Some Unions abuse their Members by over charging them with overhead on the pensions/benefits, paying themselves excessive salaries, putting their family members on the payroll and out right stealing the members money.
When you add in the dues, the working restrictions, the excessive benefit charges and the barring of an employer's ability to pay a bonus or give a raise many are far better off with out a union.*
*"The average UAW autoworker at the 'Big 3' makes roughly a little less than $60,000 a year and the average non-union autoworker in the U.S. makes roughly $52,000 and considering that most of the nonunion plants are in lower cost of living areas, I would say that both are quite competitive with one another. Basically no one is getting rich who is a general worker at any U.S. auto manufacturing plant." Detroit Free Press http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_au tomakers_bonuses_boost_wages_i n_us_plants_as_detroit_car_com panies_struggle.aspx

Great, you post your personal ideas and experiences, including Googles, and I'll post mine.

And, FYI, I never said unions were great. They had their day, but became too power hungry.

But, in today's job market, it's tough for folks to keep up with inflation (yes, there is inflation; just ask your wife when she goes food shopping) when all an employer has to say is "take it or leave it".

Now, if workers want to opt out of union membership, great, but, they should be open to accepting less pay and benefits for doing the same work at the same company.

Seems fair to me.

(Suggestion, try spacing when you write a thesis. Easier to read.)

[GAMike]

There have been examples of of unions and companies collaborating vs. the traditional antagonistic Union v. Company paradigm........ Sure a company/shareholders want to be profitable, but the most important thing to a company is a path to sustainability (of which profitability is a component)....... Communities flourish when companies embedd and employ. Companies benefit when they select good employees commit to them via opportunity for advancement, hospitable workplace envirornments, recognition programs and competitve wage/benefit packages.....

Collaboration means both entities are more vested in what goes on over the other side of the table... That fosters an enhanced reputation for the brand, a safer, more productive workplace that is respectful to employees while holding them accountable for defined performance metrics such as quality, productivity, staying on schedule and training goals.... All of this requires long term consistant investment, but at the same time it minimizes the antagonistic chatter from unions to their membership and within the ivory tower towards unions.....

It works.... Until it doesn't.... It doesn't if there is no path/plan forward... There can be no plan/investment/path, if there is no profit from the company and no wages to collect dues from by the unions (who in some cases contribute out of their dues to these partnerships efforts... I beleive Ford works with some of their Unions in this manner).

The bottom line is get Unions & businesses (over a certain size... Small businesses/sole proprietorships might be workable) out of the funding of pandering political campaigns who promise the moon in return for financial support. Its just wrong....

Just my opinion.... Not 100% flushed out, but we are not in good shape in this country, and everyone owns a peice.....

[Blackened300a]

True, but you can fire the non-union one; and the non-union guy won't go on strike and shut down your entire company.

A union guy can be fired just like a non union member, the difference is the after the union member is fired, he can go to the hall and be in the network of other union shop and get rehired. To fire a teamster he has to be AWOL 3 times, have three letters written against him, caught stealing, or fail a drug/alcohol test twice. His driving and accident record can also be used to eliminate him. A strike is only used if unsafe or unfair work conditions exists in a company and are proven. Then it goes to arbitration and if a resolution isn't come to then a strike will be the next step.

Pay and benefits should be established by the employer and not some outside organization that adds cost to the end product.
It's agreed upon the employer, the union don't call you up and tell you to pay out more money, a contract is issued if you agree to the terms, you sign it and continue to be a union shop, if you don't like the terms you can go non-union or go to the board and work out a agreement with all the other businesses within a local. A union can't survive unless a agreement is made and a business agrees to the terms.


News flash. There is no such thing as a lazy union construction worker in my state, at least since 08. There is the best of the best doing more now than they ever did and family employed thru family shops..

Rules? What a laughing stock. If any of you actually knew real world work vs. what you know by reading up on bylaws you would back off. I simply can't think of one rule that isn't twisted and smashed. (It's work or sit right?)

Breaks? Can't say I know of any that aren't federal LAW. Not that I take them.

Can't be fired??? WOW really? Ever hear of laying off? Besides, what shop fires anyone union or non? NONE. No risk in laying off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well said Bob. Too many misconceptions of how unions work that it makes it easy to bash them.

[tbone]

News flash. There is no such thing as a lazy union construction worker in my state, at least since 08. There is the best of the best doing more now than they ever did and family employed thru family shops..

Rules? What a laughing stock. If any of you actually knew real world work vs. what you know by reading up on bylaws you would back off. I simply can't think of one rule that isn't twisted and smashed. (It's work or sit right?)

Breaks? Can't say I know of any that aren't federal LAW. Not that I take them.

Can't be fired??? WOW really? Ever hear of laying off? Besides, what shop fires anyone union or non? NONE. No risk in laying off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a superintendent of a major homebuilder for many years, I can still see the faces of some extremely lazy union employees of various trades, and in fact had to kick them out of my trailer for their extended "breaks" on more than a few occasions. (Some of my fellow non-union supers were total POS's.) Of course there were also many extremely hardworking union workers as well. Good and bad in any group of workers......

[Fosters]

. .

[SC Cheesehead]

There have been examples of of unions and companies collaborating vs. the traditional antagonistic Union v. Company paradigm........ Sure a company/shareholders want to be profitable, but the most important thing to a company is a path to sustainability (of which profitability is a component)....... Communities flourish when companies embedd and employ. Companies benefit when they select good employees commit to them via opportunity for advancement, hospitable workplace envirornments, recognition programs and competitve wage/benefit packages.....

Collaboration means both entities are more vested in what goes on over the other side of the table... That fosters an enhanced reputation for the brand, a safer, more productive workplace that is respectful to employees while holding them accountable for defined performance metrics such as quality, productivity, staying on schedule and training goals.... All of this requires long term consistant investment, but at the same time it minimizes the antagonistic chatter from unions to their membership and within the ivory tower towards unions.....

It works.... Until it doesn't.... It doesn't if there is no path/plan forward... There can be no plan/investment/path, if there is no profit from the company and now wages to collect dues from by the unions (who in some cases contribute out of their dues to these partnerships efforts... I beleive Ford works with some of their Unions in this manner).

The bottom line is get Unions & businesses (over a certain size... Small businesses/sole proprietorships might be workable) out of the funding of pandering political campaigns who promise the moon in return for financial support. Its just wrong....

Just my opinion.... Not 100% flushed out, but we are not in good shape in this country, and everyone owns a peice.....


Spot on, Mike, :up:

[Marauderjack]

LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?

WTF is funny about that??:cool:

[Blackened300a]

I'm not sure if the laws are the same everywhere, but in Minnesota, if an employee goes on strike, you cannot fire him if he's union, you have to keep paying him, while he's not working.

And the criteria you gave for that is waaaaay too relaxed, i'm sorry. Someone has to be drunk/do drugs TWICE to be fired? Especially in a field like construction, with so much danger looming at every step?

What about the Chrysler employees that got caught numerous times drinking and smoking weed, and had to be re-hired back? Does that fall under your "a union employee can be fired" opinion as well?

http://jalopnik.com/5967123/chrysler-had-to-rehire-the-workers-caught-getting-stoned-during-lunch

I remember when my ex worked in a unionized company, her trash had not been taken out for days, and when she did it herself, she got yelled at because that was a union job and she was taking away union work by doing that... How F'ed up is that? Can't even pick up the slack after some lazy union idiot without being threatened by the union thugs...

And what on earth gives ANYONE the right to force anyone else to be a part of ANY group and pay them? Can I force someone to join the heritage foundation or some other conservative think tank, or donate to the GOP because for the past 12 years they've enjoyed tax cuts passed by a republican? That's the rhetoric you hear from the goons when asked what problems they have with Right to Work legislation... they feel like they are owed the credit and money out of people's pockets because a union umpteen years ago negotiated a 5 day work week... Give me a break!

Get caught once you are suspended and sent directly to a rehab clinic but you hold your spot on the list, come back from rehab and get caught then you are off the list and out of the union. In the teamsters we have a strike fund we pay $24 a year into in case of a strike so you still have a income. That is paid BY the union NOT the employer.
Also nobody is forced to join the union. If you don't wanna join then find a non union shop. Nobody holds a gun to someone's head and forces then to join and pay dues, thats absolute nonsense. Also the fact that someone got yelled at because they took out the garbage and took away a union job sounds like total exaggerated BS.
I prefer to get get paid for all the hours I work and get overtime for holidays and weekends plus I like my medical, annuity, and pension so nothing can ever convince me to be anti-union. My family owns a union trucking outfit and we been doing quite well paying the benefits packages and salaries.
As for Chrysler, the workers were off duty at the time and on break, had Chrysler tested them when they returned to work they would have had a case and they would have been fired. The same way we can't fire someone for drinking on their day off, come to work drunk and we can send you down for suspicion of being intoxicated.
The right to work act gets rid of prevailing wages so now the employer will set the wage and because of corporate greed they will wanna pay you next to nothing with no overtime pay because labor is the biggest expense to a company and keeping that cost to a minimum increases their bottom line.

[GAMike]

"the fact that someone got yelled at because they took out the garbage and took away a union job sounds like total exaggerated BS."

Blackened.... Don't know about the situation Fosters is referring too, but when I was in the hotel/convention/tradeshow business, the unions were exactely like that.....

When setting up on the show floor there was a process...
The union that layed the carpet came in, unless wires needed to be layed under the carpet... If the wire were not there 1st, the electricians union employees could not just pull back the carpet... They had to call the other union to perform the task, adding time, and an add on of a minimum number of hours regardless of if the task took 10 minutes or an hour.....

I understand the expertise in some jobs (certainly would not want my circuits and breakers installed by the guys who lay carpet:eek:) but I think you can see this as an example of gross inefficiency adding to the cost of the event needlessly.

[na svt]

It's agreed upon the employer, the union don't call you up and tell you to pay out more money, a contract is issued if you agree to the terms, you sign it and continue to be a union shop, if you don't like the terms you can go non-union or go to the board and work out a agreement with all the other businesses within a local. A union can't survive unless a agreement is made and a business agrees to the terms.

This is true, but how many times has a contract been signed that has been good for the company.

My personal experience with Unions was a negative one for many reasons. However, I do understand that no all unions or union reps (presidents, stewards, etc) act in the same manner or as unreasonable as those with whom I've had the opportunity to negotiate.

Employeees no the rules and should be held accountable for their actions. The unions would have more credibility if they also held the barganing unit employees accountable rather than sticking up for them even when there is a pile of documentation stating the employers case.

[rayjay]

I worked as a non union employee in a union shop many years ago. We were not exactly treated well by either the employees or the company. We made considerably less money than the union employees.

Then in my main career I was a member of three different unions. We, the member employees, fired two of the unions and formed our own. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly union wise since I was VP of my statewide local. Overall, a correctly run union is a assest to both the employee and the employer. On a number of occaisons the union interceded to help a situation that was determental to both the employee and employer. Not to mention we'd have been making 3rd world wages if the employer could have gotten away with it. Oh, and we were forbidden to strike by law.

[Blackened300a]

I understand the expertise in some jobs (certainly would not want my circuits and breakers installed by the guys who lay carpet:eek:) but I think you can see this as an example of gross inefficiency adding to the cost of the event needlessly.


We had issues like that where a certain trade had to come in and complete a small task that could have been completed by anyone. The case was a fishtank that was delivered to the Bloomberg building in midtown. It was delivered and it became a pissing match on who was to install it between the carpenters because it was made of wood, the plumbers because it was to be piped in, and the electricians because it had to be wired in. I completely understand your point and i find it annoying at times when I would pull up on a jobsite and they would have to find a operating engineer to offload the truck, especially when its a small load, but it's a union job site so it's either all or nothing. If you let a plumber wire up a building and working out of trade, then the electricians are out of a job and vice versa, then it snowballs and there is no end to it. On a union job site you are to do the job in the trade that you are hired to do.
The example given before sounded like as if a electrician would yell at someone for plugging in a coffee pot.

[rayjay]

I loved the way they changed a light bulb at the union shop I mentioned. An electrician to change the bulb, and electricians apprentice or assistant to hold the ladder and a company supervisor to ensure it was done properly. A half dozen bulbs and the days over. :eek: seriously, yes... Its a large, well known company, that made the 1st copying machines.

[Fosters]

. .

[Blackened300a]

http://www.afscme3800.org/strikefaq

Ok I never mentioned anything about being fired for striking. It's the same law here in NY, a employee can't be fired or have action taken against them for striking.




Really, no one is forced to join a union? How come when one uses that argument - that if you don't like the benefits at a company, you don't have to work there and you can find another job - you all jump up and down and cry and moan about corporate greed? My ex worked for a railway, Canadian Pacific, find me a railroad company that's NOT unionized. If my dream is to be a locomotive engineer/conductor, there is no non-union shop. I can maybe be an engineer for one of those amusement park train rides...?

That actually made me laugh out loud. If its your dream to be a engineer then why not join the union and be paid to be a engineer? My father was a engineer for the LIRR, he put in his 30 years and collected a engineer and trainmen pension, plus medical for my mother and himself for the rest of his life. What is so wrong about that? He paid into the pension plan all his life so he gets to enjoy it instead of having to work til he physically can't anymore.


So if your family's truck drivers went on break, had a 5th of vodka and smoked some weed, you'd be ok with it putting your company at risk, and shooting your company's reputation in the foot when the video aired on national tv? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of your union employees do that.

That goes back to what I said before, if there is suspicion of someone being intoxicated they are sent down to a clinic for a test. This can't be refused or else they are suspended without pay and have to go to a hearing at the union hall. I am subject to random mandatory drug testing according to the union. They send a letter to the shop and I have to take the day off and get tested.

The right to work says if you like your union, you can be part of it. If I don't like your union, I can be not a part of it. If my wages are going to be lower and I'm ok with that, then it's my damned right to do as I please. If an employer wants to pay me next to nothing, guess what, I leave, and they will have to find someone else. Yes, in IT there are a few employers that want to pay 50k/yr for someone with vast experience in a lot of things; while others will pay 3x that. Guess where I'm going? I'm not gonna go to the 50k/yr employer, go on strike, shut down operations, and throw a temper tantrum whining about corporate greed, and how I should be paid a pension and everything else I think I'm owed.

Think we are owed??? We pay into that with our dues and our wages. It is owed because its OUR money put into these funds. The only reason why we go on strike is because of unsafe work conditions, unpaid hours worked, or the employer not keeping up their end of the agreement that they signed in the contract.

I guess it's corporate greed that wants to pad the bottom line that kept GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. Oh, wait, nevermind, it didn't, unions sure won that one! Because being unemployed from a high paying job that moved to Mexico or a right to work state is much better than being paid at a lower paying job...

I guess what it comes down to, is what I earn, I earn on my own, and I don't use collectivism to blackmail employers into paying me wages I otherwise couldn't earn.

Blackmail? The employers signed the contract, they breach the contract it's not blackmail, it's getting the money that you deserve for the job that you bust your ass doing.
This is one of those arguments that will never have a end. Some unions suck and make it easy to hate them, other unions are for the worker and make it a smart choice to work unionized. Its certainly never going to be settled on a car forum.

[Fosters]

. .

[Brad33]

I like turtles.

[Fosters]

. .

[MM2004]

This is another example of a topic that will not have a good outcome.

Same as politics and religion, just to name a few.

I have already closed 2 threads, and this will be the third if you guys don't play nice.

Obviously, I am not in the mood today, and this shat is wearing on me.

Mike.

[Fosters]

. .

[MOTOWN]

Have you ever thought of joining the forums over at CNN or Fox news?

[1 Bad Merc]

Guys this world is getting crazy. Corporations are out of control, unions are out of control, people are out of control, the internet is out of control -just unbelievable.

It's amazing how money has become the end all be all for so many people. Greed has to be the number 1 thing that has taken over America and divided us. I know we all need to survive and make a decent living for our families but we are only going to do that if we work together to make it happen.

Both sides have some great points-understand how both sides have been perverted over the years but the reality is the more we waste our time on bickering the worst this crap gets.

I am tired of the step on another person to get ahead in life philosophy. I think it is wrong and we some how lost our way.....

[MOTOWN]

Here's my main concern with our country, we fight and bicker with one another, we kill each other, but the real threat are people who want to knock down our country buildings at a time ,yet and and still we remain divided, we allow politics to define us as a people!
Terrorist be it the Talibahn ,or some nut from this country doesn't care what party we represent ,they just want all of us dead!
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE WILL CERTAINLY FALL!
We need to stand up for one AMERICA the United States of America!

[1 Bad Merc]

Here's my main concern with our country, we fight and bicker with one another, we kill each other, but the real threat are people who want to knock down our country buildings at a time ,yet and and still we remain divided, we allow politics to define us as a people!
Terrorist be it the Talibahn ,or some nut from this country doesn't care what party we represent ,they just want all of us dead!
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE WILL CERTAINLY FALL!
We need to stand up for one AMERICA the United States of America!

I agree with you-at the end of the day we are all Americans or people (Kernie) who wished they were Americans. :eek:

I can sit here and moan and groan about everything but what good does it really do for me or you? :argue:

It is a cathartic release though........and keeps Mike's blood pressure high :burnout:

[MOTOWN]

True that! LMAO

[kernie]

I agree with you-at the end of the day we are all Americans or people (Kernie) who wished they were Americans. :eek:

I can sit here and moan and groan about everything but what good does it really do for me or you? :argue:

It is a cathartic release though........and keeps Mike's blood pressure high :burnout:

Oh, are you freaking kidding me! Not in a freakin million years, lol.

How can i say it enough?, lol.

[kernie]

Oh, are you freaking kidding me! Not in a freakin million years, lol.

How can i say it enough?, lol.

Perhaps two posts will do it!

Are you freaking kidding me, lol. Not in a billion years, not even a visit is in my plans!

Lol.

[MOTOWN]

Kernie im going to send you an American flag for Christmas!

[Bluerauder]

Are you freaking kidding me, lol. Not in a billion years, not even a visit is in my plans!

So, does this mean the next Marauderville is definitely out of the question? You really should try to make one. I think you'd enjoy meeting the gang face to face.

[kernie]

Kernie im going to send you an American flag for Christmas!

Well i won't burn it but, lol, i sure wouldn't fly it, sailsmen, you are right!

Thanks for the laugh, lol.

[kernie]

So, does this mean the next Marauderville is definitely out of the question? You really should try to make one. I think you'd enjoy meeting the gang face to face.

Probably get shot, lol.

:beer:

[Micahdogg]

Originally Posted by Micahdogg http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1245378#post1 245378)
LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?



WTF is funny about that??:cool:

In the pre-EPA days, companies could dump toxic crap (or burn it) with little or no penalty. It was good for profit, but on occasions people in nearby communities would drop dead of cancer in alarming numbers. Hence the life sucking from our country and um....well, I mean, I thought the irony was obvious. Surely I wasn't he only one that saw it?

[CBT]

Probably get shot, lol.

:beer:

Nah, you certainly inject a certain entertainment quality to some topics on this site, I've already told you i'd shake your hand and hang out with ya. Some of your post are insane in my opinion, but that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't shoot you for them. I'm not a union fan, but I'm a fan of justbob and guspech (among others) and they are union. Hell, you should see the texts me and guspech have been sending back and forth the last hour about unions, it is what it is and we still get along. I was commenting on Facebook with a pro-union buddy that used to work for me in the Navy, we had a very civil discussion on his page. I asked him, as a former military person, if he would allow unions in the military. Nope. In certain trades and certain applications I'm sure the unions serve a purpose, but until they are allowed in the military, I want no part of them. And if that does happen, I'll join you in Canada. ;)

[Marauderjack]

Originally Posted by Micahdogg http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1245378#post1 245378)
LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?




In the pre-EPA days, companies could dump toxic crap (or burn it) with little or no penalty. It was good for profit, but on occasions people in nearby communities would drop dead of cancer in alarming numbers. Hence the life sucking from our country and um....well, I mean, I thought the irony was obvious. Surely I wasn't he only one that saw it?


The EPA and costly regulations have run most industry into countries where the costs are low enough to bring products back here economically along with LEAD and any number of seriously bad actors (where is the EPA now?).......is that better with and tremendous number of people being exposed??

Be careful drinking your tap water.......or your bottled water from APPROVED plastic containers.........or breathing Benzene (if you even know what that is) fumes when ya fill up with Premium fuel!!

The EPA is costing every one of us in ways you cannot begin to imagine......and it continues to grow!!

[sailsmen]

Originally Posted by Micahdogg http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1245378#post1 245378)
LOL - the EPA regulating chemical emissions is sucking the life from our country?




In the pre-EPA days, companies could dump toxic crap (or burn it) with little or no penalty. It was good for profit, but on occasions people in nearby communities would drop dead of cancer in alarming numbers. Hence the life sucking from our country and um....well, I mean, I thought the irony was $obvious. Surely I wasn't he only one that saw it?

WRONG! Asbestos, just one example, which was required by the Federal Gov't to be used in many applications resulting in the companies who used it paying $billions and $billions in "penalties". In addition to the EPA every single State has it's own EPA. A company that exposes it's assets to law suits is not good for profits.

[Fosters]

. .

[Baaad GN]

I started this discussion but when there is talk about letting Kerni accross the boarder it scares ME!
Maybe it's time to lock this down!!!!!!!!!!!

[kernie]

I started this discussion but when there is talk about letting Kerni accross the boarder it scares ME!
Maybe it's time to lock this down!!!!!!!!!!!

Ehh, been back and forth over the border thousands of times in my trucking days, 3 times a day 4 days a week for a couple of years. Don't worry about me i'm loveable!

:rolleyes:

[rayjay]

Probably get shot, lol.

:beer:

Last I knew Canadians could own firearms. So you could get shot at home too, but I'd stay out of Chicago.

IMHO, this country is on a rocket sled to hell.

[kernie]

Last I knew Canadians could own firearms. So you could get shot at home too, but I'd stay out of Chicago.

IMHO, this country is on a rocket sled to hell.


Longbarrel guns yes, not handguns but for a very select few who have good reason. As i've said before i've never seen a handgun in my life. Handguns are for shooting people so other than police and some security officials why should they be tolerated?

Just my opinion.

[SC Cheesehead]

Longbarrel guns yes, not handguns but for a very select few who have good reason. As i've said before i've never seen a handgun in my life. Handguns are for shooting people so other than police and some security officials why should they be tolerated?

Just my opinion.

I have a handgun and have no intention of shooting anyone with it, so does that make me intolerable? :dunno:

[kernie]

Nah, you certainly inject a certain entertainment quality to some topics on this site, I've already told you i'd shake your hand and hang out with ya. Some of your post are insane in my opinion, but that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't shoot you for them. I'm not a union fan, but I'm a fan of justbob and guspech (among others) and they are union. Hell, you should see the texts me and guspech have been sending back and forth the last hour about unions, it is what it is and we still get along. I was commenting on Facebook with a pro-union buddy that used to work for me in the Navy, we had a very civil discussion on his page. I asked him, as a former military person, if he would allow unions in the military. Nope. In certain trades and certain applications I'm sure the unions serve a purpose, but until they are allowed in the military, I want no part of them. And if that does happen, I'll join you in Canada. ;)


Well i'm not worried about you blasting me...

I'm not big on unions myself but at the same time i see the middle class being eroded further by big money interests.

The way it seems to be going there will soon be only the rich and the poor and very few left in the middle.

Not good.

:beer:

[guspech750]

Nah, you certainly inject a certain entertainment quality to some topics on this site, I've already told you i'd shake your hand and hang out with ya. Some of your post are insane in my opinion, but that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't shoot you for them. I'm not a union fan, but I'm a fan of justbob and guspech (among others) and they are union. Hell, you should see the texts me and guspech have been sending back and forth the last hour about unions, it is what it is and we still get along. I was commenting on Facebook with a pro-union buddy that used to work for me in the Navy, we had a very civil discussion on his page. I asked him, as a former military person, if he would allow unions in the military. Nope. In certain trades and certain applications I'm sure the unions serve a purpose, but until they are allowed in the military, I want no part of them. And if that does happen, I'll join you in Canada. ;)

You shuts your traps you SCAB!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

[SC Cheesehead]

Well i'm not worried about you blasting me...

I'm not big on unions myself but at the same time i see the middle class being eroded further by big money interests.

The way it seems to be going there will soon be only the rich and the poor and very few left in the middle.

Not good.

:beer:

Nope, we're working hard on taking it down to a single class...

"Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more"

Ten Years After - I'd Love To Change The World


:rolleyes:

[kernie]

Nope, we're working hard on taking it down to a single class...

"Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more"

Ten Years After - I'd Love To Change The World


:rolleyes:




i like that song but i don't think the rich are getting poorer at all. The gap continues to grow.

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

i like that song but i don't think the rich are getting poorer at all. The gap continues to grow.

:beer:


Wait'll after January 1st.

Two words: Fiscal Cliff...

[rayjay]

Longbarrel guns yes, not handguns but for a very select few who have good reason. As i've said before i've never seen a handgun in my life. Handguns are for shooting people so other than police and some security officials why should they be tolerated?

Just my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, they were designed to be useful when a long gun could not be used. In the "cowboy" era they were chambered for the same ammunition as their long guns. Hunting, target shooting, varmint control, self protection in the wilderness, a backup to a long gun, are all uses other than two legged varmint control.

My understanding from folks on other forums is that a Canadian may own a handgun as long as it conforms to their standards on barrel length, I believe 4" and up. There are probably other requirements. I have no desire to emmigrate to a place where it is colder than where I already am. Therefor I am not up to date on the various provinces firearms laws.

If you check the statistics, where handguns have been banned, murder rates have not been affected. So much for gun bans. As I posted else where we don't need more gun control, we need knut case control. It is far to difficult to obtain information, help a EDP who doesn't want help, but clearly needs it and stop them from obtaining firearms. Why?, HIPPA protects them. The VA Tech shooter was a known kook as was the guy in the CO theater shooting, as will be this POS from yesterday. A gun is a inanimate machine that can do nothing without outside intervention.

My thoughts and prayers are with the innocents who lost their lives yesterday at the hands of a mad man.

I forgot, I have carried a firearm daily for 36 years and have not once shot a person. FWIW...

[sailsmen]

The right to self defense and the right to own a hand gun is not a requirement to self defense or to own a hand gun.
You still have the right to do nothing and to watch your self, your friends and family be slaughtered. You don't have the right to require the same of me.
Hand guns are used everyday in the USA to defend and protect from violence.
Of the 4 people I know who were murdered and the 14 women who were rapped including home invasion and torture none were engaged in criminal activity and all were unarmed.
Try walking around and driving around with a shot gun in your hand. Very, very difficult. A hand gun is for self defense and long gun is for killing.

CATO - "That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns." http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

Dr. Kleck "Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year." http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

[sailsmen]

I believe people should display their beliefs. All who oppose the right to self defense and the right to own a gun should display a "Gun Free" symbol on their person, their home and business. This way the criminals will know where to go to practice their trade safely and I will know where not to go.

[kernie]

The right to self defense and the right to own a hand gun is not a requirement to self defense or to own a hand gun.
You still have the right to do nothing and to watch your self, your friends and family be slaughtered. You don't have the right to require the same of me.
Hand guns are used everyday in the USA to defend and protect from violence.
Of the 4 people I know who were murdered and the 14 women who were rapped including home invasion and torture none were engaged in criminal activity and all were unarmed.
Try walking around and driving around with a shot gun in your hand. Very, very difficult. A hand gun is for self defense and long gun is for killing.

CATO - "That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns." http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

Dr. Kleck "Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year." http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm


LA might be the most armed place in the world, must have a very low crime rate.

[PonyUP]

Gun owners are victims of crimes everyday, owning a gun will not necessarily prevent you from bring a victim
All it takes for evil to succeed is the determination
Lets not forget, Gabby Gifford, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the mall shooting, the Colorado shooting and yesterday's tragedy all happened with legally owned and registered weapons of either the shooters themselves or relatives of the shooter

In short nobody is going to take away your goddamn guns, it will never happen as it has been tried and failed miserably

However if you are a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, why a does an extensive background check, mental facilities test, and extensive training requirement translate into we are taking your guns

It should be more ****ing difficult to get a gun than ordering fries at McDonalds

Evil will happen everyday, it will always find a way. I've heard the guns don't kill people crap, they do. And because they are a lethal weapon, you should be required to do a hell of a lot more than go through a 3 day waiting period.

We have all seen the numerous idiots walking around every day doing stupid things, stupid people do stupid things. Now let a stupid person buy a gun.

In short you can't prevent this from happening, but to think because you own a gun you'll be able to Rambo up in the face of danger when confronted, most people freeze.

Because I know your going to google your rebuttal, you can save me the time, I'm willing to bet more people are injured by their own guns, as opposed to being All Die Hard and actually shooting the criminal

Training and deep background checks are what's needed, not banning guns


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[nh muscle]

That I believe is Texas!! Try robbing a store there and I believe they still have the death penalty there also. If the ahole yesterday drove his car around a play ground running over kids and killing them would we ban cars?

[PonyUP]

That I believe is Texas!! Try robbing a store there and I believe they still have the death penalty there also. If the ahole yesterday drove his car around a play ground running over kids and killing them would we ban cars?

No, but we do require training to get a license, testing that is renewed. Comparing a car to a gun I don't think is a valid comparison.

And to be fair, I don't believe anyone here has said ban guns, in fact I don't believe any government official has ever said ban guns.

Shouldn't they be harder to get than a fishing license?

A gun is called a lethal weapon for a reason.


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[guspech750]

I copied this link from a CCW discusssion on The Chicago Garage forum. I think this will prove with actual facts to the anti CCW people that CCW actually reduces crime.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=a79e31547a0cb25c7522b74256 c3eea0&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thechicag ogarage.com%2Fforum%2Fpolitics-religion%2F126661-yet-another-reason-why-concealed-carry-should-illegal-8.html&v=1&libid=1355602919648&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglin k.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3Da79e31547a0cb25c75 22b74256c3eea0%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.thechicagogara ge.com%252Fforum%252Fpolitics-religion%252F126661-yet-another-reason-why-concealed-carry-should-illegal-8.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F% 252Fwww.law.harvard.edu%252Fst udents%252Forgs%252Fjlpp%252FV ol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf %26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fww w.thechicagogarage.com%252Ffor um%252Fpolitics-religion%252F126661-yet-another-reason-why-concealed-carry-should-illegal-9.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thechicag ogarage.com%2Fforum%2Fpolitics-religion%2F126661-yet-another-reason-why-concealed-carry-should-illegal-9.html&title=Yet%20ANOTHER%20reason%2 0why%20Concealed%20Carry%20sho uld%20be%20ILLEGAL!!!!%20-%20Page%208%20-%20The%20Chicago%20Garage&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.harva rd.edu%2Fstudents%2F...useronl ine.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_135560327820 28)

[rayjay]

Starting to sound like the legal forum on 1911.org. Gun laws and CCW are different state to state. Where in NYS it is a lengthy process, as much as a year, where I am moving it involves a 8hr class and a NICS check. Quite a difference.

I certainly agree with training. I had hundreds of hours. 2+ years after retiring I continue to train on a regular basis to keep my skills up. If I was loon though, well thats protected information...

[PonyUP]

The right to self defense and the right to own a hand gun is not a requirement to self defense or to own a hand gun.
You still have the right to do nothing and to watch your self, your friends and family be slaughtered. You don't have the right to require the same of me.
Hand guns are used everyday in the USA to defend and protect from violence.
Of the 4 people I know who were murdered and the 14 women who were rapped including home invasion and torture none were engaged in criminal activity and all were unarmed.
Try walking around and driving around with a shot gun in your hand. Very, very difficult. A hand gun is for self defense and long gun is for killing.

CATO - "That means tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns." http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

Dr. Kleck "Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year." http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html?c=&page=1




The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[cat in the hat]

" <snip> . . . Of the 4 people I know who were murdered and the 14 women who were rapped including home invasion and torture . . . <snip> "

Where the hell do you live ? !

[kernie]

Where the hell do you live ? !

You just don't get it!

All of these victims did not have a gun within reach, if everyone in LA had guns within 4 feet of them there would be zero crime in LA.

I will save you the trouble of posting this sailsmen, everyone come to kernies house, he is unarmed!

:D

[guspech750]

You just don't get it!

All of these victims did not have a gun within reach, if everyone in LA had guns within 4 feet of them there would be zero crime in LA.

I will save you the trouble of posting this sailsmen, everyone come to kernies house, he is unarmed!

:D

Kernieville Marauder meet. Buffalo Wings, blue cheese, beer, soda, hockey on tv and our Marauder friends FTW


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

[sailsmen]

Where the hell do you live ? !

All occurred in the city of New Orleans.

[sailsmen]

Myths about the Middle Class? Do the facts paint a different picture?
What the facts below tell us is 1) that 60% of the population in the middle incomes in real dollars grew 40% from 1979-2007.

2) that the Top 1% income is "quite volatile" and 3) from 2007-10 retirees and people on welfare were the only group whose income rose.



The 60% of the population in the middle income is stable and in real dollars has grown from 1979 to 2010 by ~28%. This indicates this group is dominated by non risk takers, people who are employees and people who work for the Gov't.



The Top 1% of the populations income in real dollars has grown from 1980 to 2009 by ~67%. This group is dominated by risk takers.



Should people who take risk by 1) starting and then selling a business or 2) by buying and selling a business or 3) by buying and selling stocks have a greater reward than people who do not take risk?



"Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent."



Per the Federal Reserve between 2007-10 "...while the median real income fell 7.7% and retirees and non-workers incomes rose"!


"The Fed survey found that the median value of family income, when adjusted for inflation and before taxes, fell by 7.7 percent — from $49,600 in 2007 to $45,800 in 2010. The median is the midpoint of all family income."

"The decline in median income was widespread across demographic groups, with only a few groups experiencing stable or rising incomes," the Fed survey said. "Most noticeably, median incomes moved higher for retirees and other nonworking families. The decline in median income was most pronounced among more highly educated families … and families living in the South and West regions."



The Fed found that median net worth fell 38.9 percent — from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010.



Per the CBO from 1979, (a stock market low), until 2007, (a stock market high), the Top 1% increased 275%. Using 1980 until 2008 it would be 165%.



“ For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles), the growth in average real after-taxhousehold income was just under 40 percent.”



“Average real after-tax income for that group, top 1%, has been quite volatile: It spiked in1986 and fell in 1987, reflecting an acceleration of capital gains realizations into 1986 in anticipation of the scheduled increase in tax rates the following year. Income growth for the top 1 percent of the population rebounded in 1988 but fell again with the onset of the 1990–1991 recession. By 1994, after-tax householdincome was 50 percent higher than it had been in 1979. Income growth surged in1995, averaging more than 11 percent per year through 2000. After falling sharply in 2001 because of the recession and stock market drop, average realafter-tax income for the top 1 percent of the population rose by more than 85 percent

between2002 and 2007. (The turmoil in financial markets in 2008 probably reversed someof that growth, but it is not clear by how much or forhow long.)”

“…capital gains, accounted about four-fifths of the total increase in concentration..”

[cat in the hat]

All occurred in the city of New Orleans.

And you know them all personally ?

[PonyUP]

Myths about the Middle Class? Do the facts paint a different picture?
What the facts below tell us is 1) that 60% of the population in the middle incomes in real dollars grew 40% from 1979-2007.

2) that the Top 1% income is "quite volatile" and 3) from 2007-10 retirees and people on welfare were the only group whose income rose.



The 60% of the population in the middle income is stable and in real dollars has grown from 1979 to 2010 by ~28%. This indicates this group is dominated by non risk takers, people who are employees and people who work for the Gov't.



The Top 1% of the populations income in real dollars has grown from 1980 to 2009 by ~67%. This group is dominated by risk takers.



Should people who take risk by 1) starting and then selling a business or 2) by buying and selling a business or 3) by buying and selling stocks have a greater reward than people who do not take risk?



"Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent."



Per the Federal Reserve between 2007-10 "...while the median real income fell 7.7% and retirees and non-workers incomes rose"!


"The Fed survey found that the median value of family income, when adjusted for inflation and before taxes, fell by 7.7 percent — from $49,600 in 2007 to $45,800 in 2010. The median is the midpoint of all family income."

"The decline in median income was widespread across demographic groups, with only a few groups experiencing stable or rising incomes," the Fed survey said. "Most noticeably, median incomes moved higher for retirees and other nonworking families. The decline in median income was most pronounced among more highly educated families … and families living in the South and West regions."



The Fed found that median net worth fell 38.9 percent — from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010.



Per the CBO from 1979, (a stock market low), until 2007, (a stock market high), the Top 1% increased 275%. Using 1980 until 2008 it would be 165%.





“…capital gains, accounted about four-fifths of the total increase in concentration..”

Dude, instead of copy and pasting, how about you just post the links, it will probably save a tremendous amount of space on the server

And your latest isn't even in relation to the original topic-unions, or the secondary topic-guns.

Are you just surfing the websites to find random stuff to post?




The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[sailsmen]

And you know them all personally ?

Yes, I knew and know them. Not all in the Biblical sense.

A home invasion resulted in her being ganged rapped and he being beaten. She was 6 months pregnant and still a newlywed. The motive was robbery. The police eventually caught them. I dined at their house many a times and attended their wedding.

When I was 12 I awoke to my father stopping a drug crazed burglar breaking into our house with his M1 Carbine and the words stop or I will shoot. My father held him at gun point until the police arrived.

[jerrym3]

So the middle class is doing just fine?

I don't buy it.

If you are middle class, can you say that your wages/income have kept up with prices?

[sailsmen]

In New Orleans many of the middle to upper middle class neighborhoods hire a private police detail at nite to meet you at your home to guard you getting in. These were not HO Assns just people forming a purchasing group.
Upper class have full time private police details.
Some areas have formed a separate taxing district specifically for additional police protection.

[rayjay]

In New Orleans many of the middle to upper middle class neighborhoods hire a private police detail at nite to meet you at your home to guard you getting in. These were not HO Assns just people forming a purchasing group.
Upper class have full time private police details.
Some areas have formed a separate taxing district specifically for additional police protection.

Uhm, if I had to resort to that, I'd move as fast as my feet could carry me. If you can not be safe in your own home, whats the point in living in that town?

[kernie]

Kernieville Marauder meet. Buffalo Wings, blue cheese, beer, soda, hockey on tv and our Marauder friends FTW


Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

My bid won marauderville!

Wow, i really thought Atlanta was going to win!

Wait till all my neighbors see all those MM's pull up! Nice cars they will say...wait...they are Americans!!!

Back inside! I bet they will even lock their doors!









:D

[Haggis]

My bid won marauderville!

Wow, i really thought Atlanta was going to win!

Wait till all my neighbors see all those MM's pull up! Nice cars they will say...wait...they are Americans!!!

Back inside! I bet they will even lock their doors!









:D

Dibs on the garage. WooHoo, I am going to be staying at my buddy kernie's house for MVXI.

[PonyUP]

Dibs on the garage. WooHoo, I am going to be staying at my buddy kernie's house for MVXI.

Damnit, I wanted the garage, dibs on the room with a bed and a heater


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[justbob]

My bid won marauderville!



Back inside! I bet they will even lock their doors!









:D
Not me! I rarely lock the house, and when the MM is actually in the driveway the keys can usually be found dangling from the ignition! Now the garage.. It is always on lock down. 😉





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fosters]

. .

[Fosters]

. .

[kernie]

Damnit, I wanted the garage, dibs on the room with a bed and a heater


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message


Well OK, but you can't turn the heater up very high as it will melt the walls.

[PonyUP]

We cannot talk about unions anymore because someone will call union workers lazy, some union guy will take it personal, and mein fuhrer2004 will step in and lock this bish down faster than anything.

Well the problem is people speak in generalities or stereotypes. I personally know two union members on this board that are the hardest working people I've ever seen. They don't take vacations, they work insane hours, they don't take sick days, and they don't get to leave early to watch their kids musical or sporting events.

If I were them, and someone called all union people lazy, drunk and stupid, I'd be pissed off and rightfully so.

Unfortunately on this board we will take one group of people and paint them all with the same brush

Or because someone tries to keep the board at a level where all are welcome, we compare him to Hitler, which is about the most offensive thing you can say about a person.

I know Mike, he is a close friend of mine, maybe if you ever showed up for a meet, you would feel differently about him.

A more caring, dedicated, and ethical man you will not find


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[guspech750]

Interesting article. Not shocking at all. I would do the same if I was in the elite class of money makers. I'd leave too or find ways to avoid such bs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9740253/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-disappeared-from-official-statistics-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

Sent from my iPhone 4S

DTR + 4.10's + Eaton swap = Wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

[PonyUP]

Well OK, but you can't turn the heater up very high as it will melt the walls.

Can I get an extra comforter, and mints on the pillow?


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[kernie]

Not me! I rarely lock the house, and when the MM is actually in the driveway the keys can usually be found dangling from the ignition! Now the garage.. It is always on lock down. ��





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really don't lock the doors and leave the keys in the ignition!? Naw. Jeez i was just kidding when i said "might lock the doors", it was in a Michael Moore movie.

:beer:

[justbob]

You really don't lock the doors and leave the keys in the ignition!? Naw. Jeez i was just kidding when i said "might lock the doors", it was in a Michael Moore movie.

:beer:

Pretty much. The keys are either A) I was gonna run back out, didn't, forgot about them till the next day or B) was gonna run back out, didn't, thought about retrieving them and thought screw that, who the hell would steal a Merc?

I live in a quiet subdivision anywho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[justbob]

BTW thanks Brad!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[justbob]

Dude, instead of copy and pasting, how about you just post the links, it will probably save a tremendous amount of space on the server



Are you just surfing the websites to find random stuff to post?




The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

No doubt. Scrolling through all this Paste after paste is getting really OLD.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kernie]

Poorer depends on where you draw the line at considering people "rich". If you draw it at the top 5%, they are getting poorer. If you draw it at 250k per household, they are getting poorer. If you draw it a million + per year income, they are probably getting richer.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Note the decline at the top 1%, starting in 2007 when it peaked.

The problem is, it's these income levels (250k+ or top 5%) that pay the BULK of the taxes.

Note also, the fact that the top 5%, starting at just 160k/yr AGI, pay almost 60% of ALL taxes. The rest 95% pay the other 40%...

I know exactly your next argument - and that will be that well, the top 5% make more money than the other 95%, but that is simply not true, they have a lower share than 60% of all income - they pay that much of the total taxes because they are taxed at much higher rates.

You discourage these to work as hard and you will hurt tax revenues like there is no tomorrow. Don't believe me? Look at UK. Losing entrepreneurs left and right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9740253/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-disappeared-from-official-statistics-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

How is it the bottom 50% pay 2% of all taxes, while the top 50% pays 98% of all taxes? Why shouldn't everyone simply pay for how much government they consume? Why do I have to carry my weight and another person's weight on my back?



That's funny, i read an article about France's rich leaving for England. I couldn't find it but here is an article about those poor suffering french rich.

I really was talking about the top 1% or even less who will be the big winners of the union busting, hey it's faux news who are leading the union busting crusade, that should tell you all you need to know.




The proposed 75 percent top tax rate, up from 48 percent, will affect around 30,000 French citizens, or 0.46 percent of the population.
If Parliament approves the budget when it comes up for review in September, France will have the world’s highest tax rate, beating the top rate for Aruba, the country with the highest top tax rate.



The move comes a day after Spain presented its new belt-tightening budget (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/388647/20120927/spain-budget-live-blog-rajoy-austerity.htm). The French government announced plans to raise €30bn in a bid to cut the public deficit to 3 percent of GDP from the existing 4.5 percent.
Reports suggest that only one-third of the required revenue will come from spending cuts. Around €10bn will most likely be raised through fresh taxes on the rich, while another €10bn may be mopped up from the corporate sector. Existing tax exemptions are also likely to be slashed.
But while millionaire taxpayers are reportedly angry at the move, the government has softened the blow by announcing that the punishing rate will only be in effect for two years.
The government has made it clear that the middle and working classes will not be badly affected by the budget. "With constant incomes, nine out of 10 French taxpayers will not be affected by the tax increases," said the French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, according to AFP.
According to the latest unemployment figures, France has more than three million people out of work, the country's highest figure in recent times. Its economy has been largely stagnant for the last three years.
Even the government's modest growth rate of 0.8 percent projected for the year is considered ambitious by experts.
Ayrault defended the projection, telling France 2 Television that it is realistic and within reach. "This budget is about struggle, about reconstruction. If we abandon the [3 percent] target, our interest rates will rise immediately."

http://www.ibtimes.com/france-hammer-millionaires-75-top-tax-rate-797233

[Fosters]

. .

[rayjay]

Its coming down to the entitled and those who have to pay for it. Those who work and pay saying enough, I did not work this hard to give my money away so some schlime can sit on their lazy azz to drink & drug all day on my dime, through the redistribution of wealth of the socom government we now have.

75%, I'd give it to charity 1st, at least it may do some good. :puke:

[PonyUP]

Its coming down to the entitled and those who have to pay for it. Those who work and pay saying enough, I did not work this hard to give my money away so some schlime can sit on their lazy azz to drink & drug all day on my dime, through the redistribution of wealth of the socom government we now have.

75%, I'd give it to charity 1st, at least it may do some good. :puke:

Not all union workers are drunks and lazy, like every work force or group of people, there are good and bad. There are absolute needs for unions, especially in construction where contractors will abuse workers to come in under budget, maximize profits and increase job capabilities.

We focus on one group that was caught drinking on the job, and suddenly all union workers drink on the job

Unions helped provide some of the workers rights you have today whether your union or not

Overtime
Holiday pay
Minimum wage
Safe work environment
Safety equipment mandates

Just to name a few. We have union brethren on this site

Teachers
Police officers
Plumbers
Drillers
Electricians
General contractors

Who are patient enough not to comment in a thread like this and yet they have been called drunks and lazy over and over on this thread. They've been called evil, they've been blamed for ruining the country

I'm willing to bet all of you in this thread would have a much different opinion of you met some of our union members on this board and saw how hard they work

I have friend on this board, union, he has had 1 vacation in 8 years, he doesn't get to see his kids at their school functions, he doesn't get to take his wife on a weekend getaway, if he has a cold he can't call in sick, oh and when he does have spare time, he busts his ass doing work on this sites Marauders


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[jerrym3]

I've seen the good and bad in unions.

As a young union worker (steelworkers), I was told by my union rep not to work hard. Just do what you have to.

As a UAW parts depot worker, I knew exacly how much work was required of me, so I'd do my job and then go to the locker room for hours to finish my homework (Rutgers/night school).

As a first line warehouse supervisor, the union rep, in private, threatened my job by suggesting I "play ball" or ten workers would swear I hit him, and I'd be out of work.

But, while managing union workers as a project manager doing remote branch IT office projects, I never met a lazy union worker; in fact, sometimes in a rough spot, I saw them jump through hoops to get a problem solved.

But, these were well paid skilled union workers, not "load the shelves" employees.

If my dad hadn't landed a union job (steelworkers) when he came here from Italy with a 6th grade education, my life would have been greatly different.

But, he was a worker.

[rayjay]

Ponyup, ??? on my post. I wasn't referring to unions. I have been a union member all my adult life and a former: regional VP, Trustee and Exec VP. Not to mention being the local unit chair. I am now in the retirees chapter of our PBA.

I was replying to a slightly off topic post about taxation and the entitlement society it has fostered.

[PonyUP]

Ponyup, ??? on my post. I wasn't referring to unions. I have been a union member all my adult life and a former: regional VP, Trustee and Exec VP. Not to mention being the local unit chair. I am now in the retirees chapter of our PBA.

I was replying to a slightly off topic post about taxation and the entitlement society it has fostered.

Yeah sorry Ray, I quoted you than got off on a tangent, my bad


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[rayjay]

Yeah sorry Ray, I quoted you than got off on a tangent, my bad


The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

No harm, no foul bud. :D

[MERCMAN]

We cannot talk about unions anymore because someone will call union workers lazy, some union guy will take it personal, and mein fuhrer2004 will step in and lock this bish down faster than anything.

If this was a feeble attempt at humor, you missed the boat and have succeeded in putting your name at the top of my personal "watch list". Your contributions here seem to always have an underlying theme of unrest and general pot stirring.

Therefore I highly suggest that you take your screen name to heart and "Foster" a new attitude on this site.

[Blackened300a]

We cannot talk about unions anymore because someone will call union workers lazy, some union guy will take it personal, and mein fuhrer2004 will step in and lock this bish down faster than anything.

If you are referring to me taking it personal, you are correct. I'm in deep in the construction industry in a union dominated city and lazy don't apply in this field which is why I will defend it. If making less money and have nothing to show for it after years of your labor works for you then thats great. I wish you nothing but happiness in your profession. I made my choice, you made yours and nothing ever said on a car forum will ever change that which is why Mike stepped in and put a end to the discussion.

[Fosters]

. .

[PonyUP]

I keep my attempts at humor in the joke thread. Probably where you should put your threats. Really, I'm on your "watch list"? :eek:

.
Whatever, the comment was still in extremely poor taste. You have a tendency to make antagonistic comments, and then when someone calls you on it, you perceive it as a threat?

Calling someone Hitler is never acceptable, hopefully one day you'll grow up, but I somehow doubt it



The Ice Bucket Approves of this message

[Ozark Marauder]

If you want to be in a union and enjoy it, more power to you. I simply cannot fathom the justification for forcing your way of life onto someone else, simply so that your union has more power squeezing those evil bastards that are putting a roof over your head.

What exactly do you mean by this statement?

OZ

[Fosters]

. .

[MERCMAN]

[QUOTE=Fosters;1246861]I keep my attempts at humor in the joke thread. Probably where you should put your threats. Really, I'm on your "watch list"? :eek:



Obviously you have mistaken me for someone else. I don't take kindly to suggestions regarding where an owner should put his "threats", so in the spirit of Christmas giving,, have a nice vacation see you next year. BTW it wasn't a threat, it was a promise!

[Ozark Marauder]

Exactly what I've been saying all along. The only way the unions obtain higher wages and benefit is by blackmailing employers with shutting down operations, and they do it via laws that make it hard for an employer to fight back (such as not being allowed to replace someone on strike). If employees were good, they would succeed on their own merit, by negotiating their own wages and benefits, like the other 88.6% of the country that's not unionized.

People who are willing to force their views onto others for their own personal benefit under the pretense of it being for the greater good, do not impress me.

Okay, just wasn't getting your point.

OZ

[SC Cheesehead]

[QUOTE=Fosters;1246861]I keep my attempts at humor in the joke thread. Probably where you should put your threats. Really, I'm on your "watch list"? :eek:



Obviously you have mistaken me for someone else. I don't take kindly to suggestions regarding where an owner should put his "threats", so in the spirit of Christmas giving,, have a nice vacation see you next year. BTW it wasn't a threat, it was a promise!


Saw this one coming....:cool:

[jerrym3]

Exactly what I've been saying all along. The only way the unions obtain higher wages and benefit is by blackmailing employers with shutting down operations, and they do it via laws that make it hard for an employer to fight back (such as not being allowed to replace someone on strike). If employees were good, they would succeed on their own merit, by negotiating their own wages and benefits, like the other 88.6% of the country that's not unionized.

People who are willing to force their views onto others for their own personal benefit under the pretense of it being for the greater good, do not impress me.

Renegotiating their own wages and benefits? Are you serious?

Again, I worked for a large Wall Street firm, an international company with branches around the world, and a large United States Property/Casualty Insurance Company. Both non-union.

Wage time: "here it is". In other words, if you don't like it, we'll get a replacement.

Benefits: "here's the Human Resouces handbook. Please review it."

Renegotiate benefits? They'll give me a better health plan or more vacation than the other 15,000 workers, and all I have to do is show my worthiness?

Never happen. They can't, unless you're in the upper echelon.

I guess if I'm making Pizzas, I might squeeze an extra 40 cents an hour out of the Pizza parlor owner, but in the corporate world?

It's all $$$.

For union's personal benefit?

Bosses/managers/owners/CEOs aren't doing what is best for their personal benefit?

And, agreed, a union that pushes too far will push itself out of business if the business fails.

That's why it's called a "negotiation".

Just because 88.6% of the workers aren't organized, that doesn't mean they have the ability to negotiate on their own.

[Cheeseheadbob]

Alrighty now... how 'bout we change gears and start a discussion about civil unions? :lol:

[SC Cheesehead]

Alrighty now... how 'bout we change gears and start a discussion about civil unions? :lol:

Bob, always wondered where they came up with that term, especially for couples together for more than 10 years; I've seen a bunch that are anything BUT civil...


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cVj8uuvWSJ4/TxQrQWIDVPI/AAAAAAAAD8w/_bEIDAYRwhg/s400/ralphkramden.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cVj8uuvWSJ4/TxQrQWIDVPI/AAAAAAAAD8w/_bEIDAYRwhg/s1600/ralphkramden.jpg)

"One of these days... One of these days, Alice... POW!..."


;) ---------> :D

[Blackened300a]

Look, you and everyone you work with may be the exception to the rule, but unfortunately, it doesn't change what unions have done to this country lately.

GM bankrupt. Mismanagement, low sales from a lousy reputation and product, plus mergers with other companies cost them with a weak economy.
Chrysler bankrupt. Mismanagement, low sales from cars nobody wanted.
Hostess bankrupt. Mismanagement, low sales from people eating healthier
Education is in the toilet, and the costs are sky high. (despite every teacher I talk to having nothing but grade A students). What does have to do with the teachers union??
Violence at rallys.
Threats to politicians and their families. People's livelyhood is being threatened, some take things too far in a situation. Doesn't mean the entire union is to blame.

If you want to be in a union and enjoy it, more power to you. I simply cannot fathom the justification for forcing your way of life onto someone else, simply so that your union has more power squeezing those evil bastards that are putting a roof over your head.

Those "evil bastards" SIGNED A CONTRACT AND AGREED TO THE TERMS!!!! There is always a negotiation and a agreement between the union and the business. Unions set the pay scale for non union companies as well, otherwise a non union company wouldn't have anyone work for them by paying minimum wage compared to a union shop. There are a lot of things that unions have done over the years for the work force, but only the negative aspects are always brought up.

[rayjay]

For the record, my Union went from 2003 to 2012 without a contract. Binding arbitration award for 03-04, no pay increases from 2005 to 2012. We continued to work with less and less as budgets were cut each year.

In 2011 we fired the union and formed our own. Through genuine good faith negociations we had a contract in hand in 60 days. Then, per normal, they stole half the back pay in taxes... what a country.